Dissenting Darwin

[darin]

Good to see honest scientists and professionals standing up for common sense and Data and Facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQgOjHsMEeE


https://dissentfromdarwin.org/


Genetics—Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”1 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn1) Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”2 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn2)
Biochemistry—Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: “[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”3 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn3) Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”4 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn4)
Paleontology—The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”5 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn5) Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”6 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn6) Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”7 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn7)
Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”8 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn8) A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,”9 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn9) and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”10 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn10)Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as “a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,”11 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn11) which he insists “cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors”12 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn12) in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that “[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest,” and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”13 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn13) Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,” indicating that “the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” He concludes: “Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”14 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn14) Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that “Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution” is “false.”15 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn15)

There are many scientific objections to Darwinian evolution, and again, this is not to say that any particular signer of the Dissent from Darwinism list makes any one of these specific arguments. Instead, this article simply indicates some of the common scientific objections to Darwinian evolution.

[pete311]

Darwin is definitely outdated, modern evolution theory has moved on like Einstein from Newton.

[Elessar]

None the less, it is still amusing to see the 'Darwin Award' annually for
the biggest idiots who chose to make stunts or accidents that can kill them.

"Natural Section" indeed!:laugh:

[pete311]

None the less, it is still amusing to see the 'Darwin Award' annually for
the biggest idiots who chose to make stunts or accidents that can kill the.

"Natural Section" indeed!:laugh:

This we agree on

[Abbey Marie]

Russ

[darin]

Darwin is definitely outdated, modern evolution theory has moved on like Einstein from Newton.

Except modern evolution theory is as-flawed and silly as strict darwinism. Just no evidence to support the outlandish conclusions and its heavy reliance upon magic and mysticism.

[CSM]

pffftt.... we have evolved to the point that (as humans) we can select our gender despite the biological evidence to the contrary....

[pete311]

Except modern evolution theory is as-flawed and silly as strict darwinism. Just no evidence to support the outlandish conclusions and its heavy reliance upon magic and mysticism.

I'm not going to get into another debate because it will go no where like the old ones. But I would encourage you to visit a local university and meet with a biologist. Much of modern medicine is due to our evolution theory knowledge. I know you argue microevolution is fine but macro is not, but that is simply a lack of perception than a lack of science. You can also find many holes, but there are many holes in our theory of gravity. Yet, you take that for granted. Again, if you want to get to the meat of anything, visit with a local university expert actually doing the research rather than relying on youtube videos and suspect websites. This is all I will say.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Microevolution is nothing more than rebranding adaptation.

Evolution, whether macro or micro, is a nonsensical farce based on magic and whimsical thought.

There's less proof of evolution than there is of GOD and creation.

[pete311]

Microevolution is nothing more than rebranding adaptation.

Evolution, whether macro or micro, is a nonsensical farce based on magic and whimsical thought.

And creationism is not? We have vaccines every year for the flu because we understand evolution.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

No... worthless flu vaccines have nothing to do with farcical evolution... https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/how-fluvaccine-made.htm

And call it creation, call it SEEDING, call it what you want, but the most logic and intelligent answer as to how life got on this planet, especially man, is that we were PUT HERE. We surely didn't start out as some amoeba in a swamp that no one could explain how it got there, and then magically arrange into highly complex cell structures into a human being. The chances of that happening are statistically ZERO.

[darin]

And creationism is not? We have vaccines every year for the flu because we understand evolution.

intelligent design as "how did we get here?" relies upon no mysticism; it is based on observation and rational thought. The flu example is bait and switch. nobody denies micro-evolotion or change within species. A flu virus will never become a liver. Nor a spider.

[darin]

I'm not going to get into another debate because it will go no where like the old ones. But I would encourage you to visit a local university and meet with a biologist. Much of modern medicine is due to our evolution theory knowledge. I know you argue microevolution is fine but macro is not, but that is simply a lack of perception than a lack of science. You can also find many holes, but there are many holes in our theory of gravity. Yet, you take that for granted. Again, if you want to get to the meat of anything, visit with a local university expert actually doing the research rather than relying on youtube videos and suspect websites. This is all I will say.


That's fine. And I do that a lot. And the more I see people make shit up and use their assumptions to create theory, then teach that made-upshit as fact to vulnerable kids, the more sickening I get.

[Abbey Marie]

Pete, have you opened your mind to Intelligent Design, and consulted with any experts at a local Bible college?

[darin]

Pete, have you opened your mind to Intelligent Design, and consulted with any experts at a local Bible college?

...or any of the hundreds and hundreds of scientists who disagree with him?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

You can cross breed a German Sheppard with a Black Lab and call it "evolution" because now you don't have a German Sheppard or a Black Lab, as though it's evolved into a NEW species, but in all actuality it's nothing more than combining two existing animals.

In any case...

A World-Famous Chemist Tells The Truth: There’s No Scientist Alive Today Who Understands Macroevolution


https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

And if there's no macroevolution, then there's no microevolution. One THEORY can't just be SCALED DOWN in hopes that if people won't believe the first big farce, just make it smaller in hopes that they'll buy the new smaller farce... aaaahh... nope.

[pete311]

Pete, have you opened your mind to Intelligent Design, and consulted with any experts at a local Bible college?

yup, I spent a lot of time volunteering in a youth group in my early 20s at a Pentecostal church and left after a pastor told me I deserved to be tortured in hell for eternity for having doubts. That is when I left.

[pete311]

No... worthless flu vaccines have nothing to do with farcical evolution... https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/how-fluvaccine-made.htm

And call it creation, call it SEEDING, call it what you want, but the most logic and intelligent answer as to how life got on this planet, especially man, is that we were PUT HERE. We surely didn't start out as some amoeba in a swamp that no one could explain how it got there, and then magically arrange into highly complex cell structures into a human being. The chances of that happening are statistically ZERO.

That explains the manufacturing. Flu viruses mutate every year. How do we understand this process?

Seeding? Sounds like magic, no? Explain the specifics please.

[pete311]

intelligent design as "how did we get here?" relies upon no mysticism; it is based on observation and rational thought. The flu example is bait and switch. nobody denies micro-evolotion or change within species. A flu virus will never become a liver. Nor a spider.

no mysticism? at some point it's about a creator waving a magic wand. evolution makes no prediction that a flu virus will become a liver or spider.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

That explains the manufacturing. Flu viruses mutate every year. How do we understand this process?

Seeding? Sounds like magic, no? Explain the specifics please.
You need someone to explain mutation to you?

What... you don't have SEARCH on your computer?

CANCER is a MUTATION.

And you've magically changed from evolution to mutation. You explain that.

[darin]

no mysticism? at some point it's about a creator waving a magic wand. evolution makes no prediction that a flu virus will become a liver or spider.

But its LOGICAL when looking at life to assume all creation (for lack of a better word) was designed.

Evolution means "Luck, random chance, magically, something becomes something else. A swim bladder becomes a lung"

Design means purpose. No magic.

[pete311]

You need someone to explain mutation to you?

What... you don't have SEARCH on your computer?

CANCER is a MUTATION.

And you've magically changed from evolution to mutation. You explain that.

are you being serious right now? mutation is core to evolution. is is page one of evolution 101.

[pete311]

But its LOGICAL when looking at life to assume all creation (for lack of a better word) was designed.

Evolution means "Luck, random chance, magically, something becomes something else. A swim bladder becomes a lung"

Design means purpose. No magic.

I guess we have a different definition of the word magic. If you can't detail this creation process or the creator in detail then it's magic. Evolution does include randomness indeed, more like probability. Just like some people have a probability to grow an extra toe. If two people with an extra toe breed then their children have the chance to have an extra toe. Suddenly you have many with an extra toe. You seem to have trouble with the vastness of time when you make big claims like a swim bladder becomes a lung. This is a process that can take millions even billions of years and there is no designed order to it. Again, I admit, I can't properly debate this, a biologist could and you should seek one out. I bet it would be super interesting.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

are you being serious right now? mutation is core to evolution. is is page one of evolution 101.
Well, that's part of the farce. Mutation is what happens to things that already exist.

Evolution is trying to convince people that cells can magically come into being, and then top that off by combining intelligently together by the billions into a huge sensuous creature, times every living thing on earth, which the mathematical probability of happening are ZERO to NONE.

Big difference, and you can't pass off mutation as evolution either. They're two entirely different things, so using mutation as some sort of evidence for evolution is nothing more than a dishonest intellectual crutch. Mutation always has been just that, mutation, some good, some bad, of EXISTING organisms, just like adaptation, and neither are or ever have been, or have anything to do with evolution.

The more we know, the more it's blatantly obvious that Darwin's OLD THEORY is just a farce, and the believers of it are increasingly disappearing, no longer afraid to admit it's a joke.

CREATION, is the most logical explanation for how we got here, everything, all living things, we were PUT here, either by a divine force or extraterrestrial entity, believe what you want, but this planet was SEEDED with us, the animals, the plants, everything. No matter WHO put us here, or when, we were HUMANS when that happened. We NEVER crawled out of a swamp, and the Baboon is what we used to be, that's just stupid thinking.

[pete311]

Well, that's part of the farce. Mutation is what happens to things that already exist.

Evolution is trying to convince people that cells can magically come into being, and then top that off by combining intelligently together by the billions into a huge sensuous creature, times every living thing on earth, which the mathematical probability of happening are ZERO to NONE.

Big difference, and you can't pass off mutation as evolution either. They're two entirely different things, so using mutation as some sort of evidence for evolution is nothing more than a dishonest intellectual crutch. Mutation always has been just that, mutation, some good, some bad, of EXISTING organisms, just like adaptation, and neither are or ever have been, or have anything to do with evolution.

The more we know, the more it's blatantly obvious that Darwin's OLD THEORY is just a farce, and the believers of it are increasingly disappearing, no longer afraid to admit it's a joke.

CREATION, is the most logical explanation for how we got here, everything, all living things, we were PUT here, either by a divine force or extraterrestrial entity, believe what you want, but this planet was SEEDED with us, the animals, the plants, everything. No matter WHO put us here, or when, we were HUMANS when that happened. We NEVER crawled out of a swamp, and the Baboon is what we used to be, that's just stupid thinking.

See there is your confusion. Evolution describes the process at which creatures change, not how they first started.

Mutation is core to Evolution. You are just flat out wrong. Sorry.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

Creation as you just described is the definition of magic.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

See there is your confusion. Evolution describes the process at which creatures change, not how they first started.

Mutation is core to Evolution. You are just flat out wrong. Sorry.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

Creation as you just described is the definition of magic.
Yeah... you can keep your ultra leftist links to your farce about evolution... I wouldn't click on a link to berkeley if you PAID me.

Evolution is a farce, you believe it, you're an idiot, end of story... sorry.

There's no magic what so ever about us being put here. There's really no other way to explain existence of all living life on earth, including mankind.

Get a clue, then get a life.

[pete311]

Yeah... you can keep your ultra leftist links to your farce about evolution... I wouldn't click on a link to berkeley if you PAID me.

Evolution is a farce, you believe it, you're an idiot, end of story... sorry.

There's no magic what so ever about us being put here. There's really no other way to explain existence of all living life on earth, including mankind.

Get a clue, then get a life.

sounds good, have a great day

[High_Plains_Drifter]

sounds good, have a great day
I always have a great day... I retired at 52... life is awesome.

[Abbey Marie]

yup, I spent a lot of time volunteering in a youth group in my early 20s at a Pentecostal church and left after a pastor told me I deserved to be tortured in hell for eternity for having doubts. That is when I left.

He was a jerk, and you should have left. But why let one misguided man let you close your heart and mind to faith in God? You gave him way too much power.

[Russ]

Good to see honest scientists and professionals standing up for common sense and Data and Facts.



Genetics—Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”1 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn1) Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”2 (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn2)
Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims.

[B]

Yes, I could not agree more with this excellent summary, especially the parts about mutation and macroevolution. :clap:

A mutation is a genetic abnormality, a mistake. It causes harm, not benefits. There is not a single genetic mutation in history that anyone can point to as an example of added complexity or a beneficial result.

Macroevolution depends upon beneficial mutations, and mostly to a ridiculous extent. For macroevolution to work, a primitive organism would have to be able to grow new limbs or a new organ in one step via a mutation, since partial limbs or a partial organ would not be an advantage that would make the mutant organism capable of 'survival of the fittest'. In other words, a creature with no arms would have to be able to have an offspring with fully formed arms. Its like a fairy tale.

Microevolution is just accentuation of good traits, like the fastest gazelle living longer than the slower gazelles because it can outrun predators. Of course that happens. But it doesn't imply that macroevolution occurs.

Another thing about mutations, by the way. Even if a beneficial mutation occurred, the only way it contributes to macroevolution is if the mutant is so much better than others of its kind that it outlives and outbreeds them all, essentially becoming the father (or mother) of the entire next generation of its species. A ridiculous premise. And even then, this assumes that the mutant can pass along its mutated genes the the entire next generation. Mutant genes in most cases are not even passed on to offspring, let alone passed along to an entire generation.

Believing in a Creator is actually a lot more logical than believing in evolution, if you give it much thought.

[Russ]

I guess we have a different definition of the word magic. If you can't detail this creation process or the creator in detail then it's magic. Evolution does include randomness indeed, more like probability. Just like some people have a probability to grow an extra toe. If two people with an extra toe breed then their children have the chance to have an extra toe. Suddenly you have many with an extra toe. You seem to have trouble with the vastness of time when you make big claims like a swim bladder becomes a lung. This is a process that can take millions even billions of years and there is no designed order to it. Again, I admit, I can't properly debate this, a biologist could and you should seek one out. I bet it would be super interesting.

Evolutionists always avoid the step of going from non-life to life, I notice. No matter how many things evolutionists let slide with the ridiculousness of mutations and macroevolution, they still don't even try to explain non-life to life. They usually say "amino acids are the building blocks of life" and then mumble and try to change the subject.

[Abbey Marie]

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands”.

Psalm 19:1

[Gunny]

Darwin is definitely outdated, modern evolution theory has moved on like Einstein from Newton.Well that was a stupid comment. And pointless.

Some things never change. You should fear Darwinism above all of us, Pete. Man's interference with it is the only reason you breathe.

[pete311]

Microevolution is just accentuation of good traits, like the fastest gazelle living longer than the slower gazelles because it can outrun predators. Of course that happens. But it doesn't imply that macroevolution occurs.


Think can happen over 300 million years. It's just a matter of time scale.

[pete311]

Evolutionists always avoid the step of going from non-life to life, I notice. No matter how many things evolutionists let slide with the ridiculousness of mutations and macroevolution, they still don't even try to explain non-life to life. They usually say "amino acids are the building blocks of life" and then mumble and try to change the subject.

Evolution theory doesn't seek to explain non-life to life. That is your issue. Not Evolution theory. Evolution only explains the process by which animals change, not how life started.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And creationism is not? We have vaccines every year for the flu because we understand evolution.

Idiot. Evolution theory always starts with life already here. I guess in your infinite liberal fantasy world that is just
a very minor detail, eh?
As explained by my teacher decades ago, reptiles became birds over millions of years of evolving. I asked what spurred all these infinite number of adaptive changes to bring about that magical results. His answer, competition living space, need to escape predators, need for food, need to survive!
I then queried, so this took place gradually over millions of years. His answer, sure it could not have happened overnight.
I then asked what impetus is immense enough to stir great change that allows millions of years of gradual change-- why didnt they all die out-- you know these reptiles with feathers crawling thru mud and muck unable t fly yet-- because their bones were not light enough?
Would those mutations have all perished.

He was dumbfounded and replied, let us discuss this later--and we did most of the school year, by its end, he was converted to thinking evolution theory is pure bunk.
Whereas a genius like you will never see the light because you love the moronic explanation that absents God's hand in creation .. -Tyr

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Evolution theory doesn't seek to explain non-life to life. That is your issue. Not Evolution theory. Evolution only explains the process by which animals change, not how life started.
Well now you've entirely moved the goal posts, because YES, you darwinists surely did tell us that all living things crawled out of the primordial swamp after life magically appeared and then magically arranged itself into complex creatures, also lacking to explain all the plants.

Now you want to pass off adaptation and mutation as evolution. Well sorry, but that's an even bigger farce than the original fairy tale.

[Gunny]

Evolutionists always avoid the step of going from non-life to life, I notice. No matter how many things evolutionists let slide with the ridiculousness of mutations and macroevolution, they still don't even try to explain non-life to life. They usually say "amino acids are the building blocks of life" and then mumble and try to change the subject.

Ding Ding Ding! I'm STILL waiting on my explanation for the "Big Bang" theory. Creating something from nothing which defies the same scientific laws the proponents of the theory tout. When your theory is contradicted by your own rules, it tells me you got scrambled eggs for brains and no real clue.

Tracing all of these theories down always seems to lead to Man's arrogance in the pseudo-science community. Man-made Global Warming. Expanding universe. How can you state the universe is expanding when you don't have a defined center?

Sure has a lot of boneheads tap dancing to the music and forking over the money.

The weak hide out withing society and cloak themselves in laws that disenfranchise the strong that built the society. It is their only protection from Darwinism. Left on their own, the weak cannot preserve themselves.

[Russ]

Think can happen over 300 million years. It's just a matter of time scale.

300 million years of macroevolution being impossible equals 300 million years of no macroevolution

[Russ]

Evolution theory doesn't seek to explain non-life to life. That is your issue. Not Evolution theory. Evolution only explains the process by which animals change, not how life started.

Creationism does explain non-life to life. Evolutionists just believe it was "magic".

[pete311]

Idiot. Evolution theory always starts with life already here. I guess in your infinite liberal fantasy world that is just
a very minor detail, eh?
As explained by my teacher decades ago, reptiles became birds over millions of years of evolving. I asked what spurred all these infinite number of adaptive changes to bring about that magical results. His answer, competition living space, need to escape predators, need for food, need to survive!
I then queried, so this took place gradually over millions of years. His answer, sure it could not have happened overnight.
I then asked what impetus is immense enough to stir great change that allows millions of years of gradual change-- why didnt they all die out-- you know these reptiles with feathers crawling thru mud and muck unable t fly yet-- because their bones were not light enough?
Would those mutations have all perished.

He was dumbfounded and replied, let us discuss this later--and we did most of the school year, by its end, he was converted to thinking evolution theory is pure bunk.
Whereas a genius like you will never see the light because you love the moronic explanation that absents God's hand in creation .. -Tyr

In your query your teacher who likely was, what, a high school teacher with limited understanding, you make gigantic assumptions. Why would they all die out? Why are you assuming the entire planet was muck? Why would the feather mutation have perished completely? Feathers are not just for flight, but for insulation. Remember theropod dinosaurs (the reptiles that became birds) were warm blooded. Retaining heat is an advantage. Again, talk to an actual evolutionary biologist rather than some run of the mill mediocre high school teacher.

[pete311]

Creationism does explain non-life to life. Evolutionists just believe it was "magic".

"let there be light" is magic, is it not?

[pete311]

Ding Ding Ding! I'm STILL waiting on my explanation for the "Big Bang" theory. Creating something from nothing which defies the same scientific laws the proponents of the theory tout. When your theory is contradicted by your own rules, it tells me you got scrambled eggs for brains and no real clue.

Tracing all of these theories down always seems to lead to Man's arrogance in the pseudo-science community. Man-made Global Warming. Expanding universe. How can you state the universe is expanding when you don't have a defined center?

Sure has a lot of boneheads tap dancing to the music and forking over the money.

The weak hide out withing society and cloak themselves in laws that disenfranchise the strong that built the society. It is their only protection from Darwinism. Left on their own, the weak cannot preserve themselves.

evolution is the description of how life changes, I don't know how you confuse that with the big bang.

[Gunny]

300 million years of macroevolution being impossible equals 300 million years of no macroevolutionI agree with your previously stated assessment.

If you are the anomaly - a genetic mistake - and do not have the means to replicate yourself genetically down to the last chromosome and create an entire race of identical life forms, when you die, the anomaly dies with you. Even if the anomaly is duplicated here and there, it is by mistake, not design.

The scientific theory of evolution cannot be proven because the bridge required to do so doesn't exist. They always hit that wall of zero evidence. That's why it's called a "theory". In each scientific theory presented, the elephant in the room of not being able to connect the dots from A to Z is the only constant.

[pete311]

I agree with your previously stated assessment.

If you are the anomaly - a genetic mistake - and do not have the means to replicate yourself genetically down to the last chromosome and create an entire race of identical life forms, when you die, the anomaly dies with you. Even if the anomaly is duplicated here and there, it is by mistake, not design.

The scientific theory of evolution cannot be proven because the bridge required to do so doesn't exist. They always hit that wall of zero evidence. That's why it's called a "theory". In each scientific theory presented, the elephant in the room of not being able to connect the dots from A to Z is the only constant.

We wouldn't have modern medicine without applying the principles of evolution.

[Russ]

"let there be light" is magic, is it not?

No, it is not.

[Gunny]

evolution is the description of how life changes, I don't know how you confuse that with the big bang.I don't. But you are trying to as a deflection.

The theory of evolution is an unproven, pseudo-scientific theory. Evolution is change to adapt to environment. Not just life evolves. I won't bother asking if you can see the difference since even if you did (it's 5th grade science) you'd deny it.

[pete311]

No, it is not.

Interesting, please explain in detail the process.

[pete311]

I don't. But you are trying to as a deflection.

The theory of evolution is an unproven, pseudo-scientific theory. Evolution is change to adapt to environment. Not just life evolves. I won't bother asking if you can see the difference since even if you did (it's 5th grade science) you'd deny it.

uh, you're the one talking about the big bang...

modern medicine is built off evolutionary principles and is not pseudo-science.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

We wouldn't have modern medicine without applying the principles of evolution.
That's a lie, just on it's face.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

uh, you're the one talking about the big bang...

modern medicine is built off evolutionary principles and is not pseudo-science.
No, it's not.

[Gunny]

We wouldn't have modern medicine without applying the principles of evolution.That is an incorrect statement. But DO explain. Or shall I? Been through this argument back in the day a thousand times, long before you.

The theory of evolution and actual, scientific, proven by fact evolution are two, very different things. It's the practice of the left to try and confuse the two and/or flip-flop from one to other as it suits them trying to confuse and convince themselves they have won an argument.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

That is an incorrect statement. But DO explain. Or shall I? Been through this argument back in the day a thousand times, long before you.

The theory of evolution and actual, scientific, proven by fact evolution are two, very different things. It's the practice of the left to try and confuse the two and/or flip-flop from one to other as it suits them trying to confuse and convince themselves they have won an argument.
Moving the goal posts and conflating a lie with something that isn't related are well used tactics of the left.

[pete311]

That is an incorrect statement. But DO explain. Or shall I? Been through this argument back in the day a thousand times, long before you.

The theory of evolution and actual, scientific, proven by fact evolution are two, very different things. It's the practice of the left to try and confuse the two and/or flip-flop from one to other as it suits them trying to confuse and convince themselves they have won an argument.

I've already given you the example of how we study flu strains yearly to create vaccines. The whole industry of genetics is supported by evolution theory.

[Black Diamond]

Is there any room for God in evolution or vice versa?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I've already given you the example of how we study flu strains yearly to create vaccines. The whole industry of genetics is supported by evolution theory.
The flu virus has nothing to do with evolution, period, end of story. It ADAPTS to different forms of antibiotics, nothing more, it becomes resistant. How you think that somehow has anything to do with the farcical evolution theory is beyond me. You must buy into every quack science theory there is, just because it's not what you want to believe.

[pete311]

Is there any room for God in evolution or vice versa?

we still don't know about the moment of the big bang or how life started. so maybe there is room there if you want to extend out to those topics that are really outside evolution, but again, the theory of evolution only describes how life changes. it's a narrow objective.

[pete311]

The flu virus has nothing to do with evolution, period, end of story. It ADAPTS to different forms of antibiotics, nothing more, it becomes resistant. How you think that somehow has anything to do with the farcical evolution theory is beyond me. You must buy into every quack science theory there is, just because it's not what you want to believe.

lol that is a main point of the theory. you don't understand evolution. end of story. it's embarrassing that you rant on about this.

[Abbey Marie]

Good thread. :thumb:

[Russ]

yup, I spent a lot of time volunteering in a youth group in my early 20s at a Pentecostal church and left after a pastor told me I deserved to be tortured in hell for eternity for having doubts. That is when I left.

The part about volunteering with the youth group is nice to hear, and I'm sorry to hear about the pastor - he could not be more wrong and is/was in the wrong profession.

What would your opinion of this debate have been back then? Did this pastor change your mind about this?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

lol that is a main point of the theory. you don't understand evolution. end of story. it's embarrassing that you rant on about this.
Sorry Bub... but you're not going to pass adaptation and/or mutation off as evolution, ain't happenin', man.

Why are you back peddling? Why are you giving up on Darwin's theory and throwing him under the bus? Embarrassed?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Good thread. :thumb:
Yeah... see... even I can debate with Pete when he decides to just debate and leave out the sarcasm and insults. He behaves, I do too.

[pete311]

Sorry Bub... but you're not going to pass adaptation and/or mutation off as evolution, ain't happenin', man.

Why are you back peddling? Why are you giving up on Darwin's theory and throwing him under the bus? Embarrassed?

Adaptation and mutation are core principles. Please stop. Find an intro textbook or I will when I get home later.

[Black Diamond]

we still don't know about the moment of the big bang or how life started. so maybe there is room there if you want to extend out to those topics that are really outside evolution, but again, the theory of evolution only describes how life changes. it's a narrow objective.

Then why does Dawkins vocalize how anti God he is when discussing evolution.

[Russ]

Then why does Dawkins vocalize how anti God he is when discussing evolution.

Richard Dawkins was much smarter back when he was hosting Family Feud. He must have had a head injury or something. :laugh:

[pete311]

Then why does Dawkins vocalize how anti God he is when discussing evolution.

Why does it matter? Dawkins is a pop scientist.

[Gunny]

I've already given you the example of how we study flu strains yearly to create vaccines. The whole industry of genetics is supported by evolution theory.The whole industry of genetics is supported by 1930s - 40s NAZI Germany's experimentation. There's an example for you to chew on.

And speaking of ... how much money do we spend studying flu strains? Yet we have all kinds of flu's every season.

The industry of genetics is driven by actual evolution, not the "theory of evolution". As I stated, y'all like to flip flop between one and the other as it suits you. I made a practice of keeping my eye on the ball when it comes to such subjects with you lefties to ensure the only person you're circle-jerking is yourself.

[pete311]

The whole industry of genetics is supported by 1930s - 40s NAZI Germany's experimentation. There's an example for you to chew on.

And speaking of ... how much money do we spend studying flu strains? Yet we have all kinds of flu's every season.

The industry of genetics is driven by actual evolution, not the "theory of evolution". As I stated, y'all like to flip flop between one and the other as it suits you. I made a practice of keeping my eye on the ball when it comes to such subjects with you lefties to ensure the only person you're circle-jerking is yourself.

What is actual evolution? Can you show me a textbook? Do you know the definition of scientific theory?

[Gunny]

What is actual evolution? Can you show me a textbook? Do you know the definition of scientific theory?Speaking of circle jerks .... I defined both above. Check it out. The up arrow allows you to scroll :rolleyes:

Evolution is life. Anything not evolving is dead/inanimate. Simple as I can make it for you. Scientific theory is someone's educated (or not) guess based on what they consider a trail of evidence and manage to sell to whichever guppy is biting. It is not supported by REAL fact, logic nor common sense. Matter of fact, I listed examples above of scientific theories that defy actual scientific law. You even made a stupid comment about it rather than address the facts stated.

[pete311]

Speaking of circle jerks .... I defined both above. Check it out. The up arrow allows you to scroll :rolleyes:

Evolution is life. Anything not evolving is dead/inanimate. Simple as I can make it for you. Scientific theory is someone's educated (or not) guess based on what they consider a trail of evidence and manage to sell to whichever guppy is biting. It is not supported by REAL fact, logic nor common sense. Matter of fact, I listed examples above of scientific theories that defy actual scientific law. You even made a stupid comment about it rather than address the facts stated.
Scientific theory is not a guess and you reduce an incredibly complex field of study with a moronically simplistic statement of evolution is life. Did you just suffer a stroke?

[Abbey Marie]

Tangential topic:
Why do you think NASA's stated number one goal in space research is to find indicia that "life" was once supported on other planets? It is the endless pursuit to try to back up theories on the origins of life for which there is and never will be proof.
I love documentaries about space, but I think the goal is flawed and unnecessary. Let's explore for other habitable planets, or useful materials, or even just for the sheer joy of it.
Stop spending millions on an agenda like this.

[Gunny]

Scientific theory is not a guess and you reduce an incredibly complex field of study with a moronically simplistic statement of evolution is life. Did you just suffer a stroke?Incorrect. I reduce scientific theory to what it is. It is complex only because people like you who believe the shit and those who love your money make it that way. Baffle 'em with bullshit, right?

You've been shot down every direction you've turned in this thread. I HAVE had a stroke. And I'm STILL not as dumb as you :slap:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Adaptation and mutation are core principles. Please stop. Find an intro textbook or I will when I get home later.
*BUZZER*... wrong again. The core principle of evolution is that life magically appears, then cells magically arrange themselves into complex living beings, and then over time magically morph themselves into entirely different things, period, and according to that theory, i.e., humans are descendants of monkeys. You're attempting to move the goal posts, Pete, and it ain't gonna fly. You're trying to mix match entirely different processes to keep the evolution farce alive... not working... sorry.

[pete311]

Incorrect. I reduce scientific theory to what it is. It is complex only because people like you who believe the shit and those who love your money make it that way. Baffle 'em with bullshit, right?

You've been shot down every direction you've turned in this thread. I HAVE had a stroke. And I'm STILL not as dumb as you :slap:
Nope

[pete311]

*BUZZER*... wrong again. The core principle of evolution is that life magically appears, then cells magically arrange themselves into complex living beings, and then over time magically morph themselves into entirely different things, period, and according to that theory, i.e., humans are descendants of monkeys. You're attempting to move the goal posts, Pete, and it ain't gonna fly. You're trying to mix match entirely different processes to keep the evolution farce alive... not working... sorry.
Nope

[pete311]

Tangential topic:
Why do you think NASA's stated number one goal in space research is to find indicia that "life" was once supported on other planets? It is the endless pursuit to try to back up theories on the origins of life for which there is and never will be proof.
I love documentaries about space, but I think the goal is flawed and unnecessary. Let's explore for other habitable planets, or useful materials, or even just for the sheer joy of it.
Stop spending millions on an agenda like this.
Can you find a source supporting your number one goal claim? There is a ton of space research that has nothing to do with finding life.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Nope
... :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

The part about volunteering with the youth group is nice to hear, and I'm sorry to hear about the pastor - he could not be more wrong and is/was in the wrong profession.

What would your opinion of this debate have been back then? Did this pastor change your mind about this?

I'd like to hear Pete's reply to this question.

[pete311]

I'd like to hear Pete's reply to this question.
Faith and science don’t have to be incompatible

[Abbey Marie]

Can you find a source supporting your number one goal claim? There is a ton of space research that has nothing to do with finding life.

Watch any science channel documentary on space research. It's quite clear. What do you think the Mars rovers were looking primarily for, btw? What did they report on more than anything, and with great glee?

Just super-quickly, from NASA's own web site:


To support NASA’s growing emphasis on detecting life beyond Earth, NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley has established the Center for Life Detection Science. CLDS brings together a diverse group of researchers at Ames and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland to tackle the next set of challenges science must overcome to be able to one day detect life beyond Earth.


The center’s formation comes at a critical moment in the field of astrobiology, the study of the origin of life and its potential in the universe. A recent report (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=25252) from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that NASA should ramp up efforts to develop technologies capable of detecting life beyond Earth to use on future missions. The report, intended to help NASA develop its science strategy and research goals for the next 20 years, also urged the agency to seek collaboration with a diverse expertise outside of traditional space sciences to get more out of space mission opportunities.In this spirit, the center is playing a foundational role in establishing a new consortium of researchers from within and outside of NASA with expertise in the physical sciences, biology, astrophysics and more. The Network for Life Detection (https://www.nfold.org/), or NfoLD, will drive research in ways that inform where NASA should best invest its resources and the design of future missions with the capabilities of detecting life.


The Laboratory for Agnostic Biosignatures (http://www.agnosticbiosignatures.org/) asks how we can recognize life “as we don’t know it.” Led by principal investigator Sarah Stewart Johnson of Georgetown University, this team of international researchers will lay the groundwork for detecting biosignatures of lifeforms that could be very different than those found on Earth, allowing for yet-to-be-conceived biochemistries that could produce exotic biomolecules.The Oceans Across Space and Time (http://oast.eas.gatech.edu/) team will investigate the possibilities of past or present life in the oceans of the icy, outer moons of our solar system, or on ancient Mars. By studying the conditions of aquatic systems that control their habitability, the team, led by principal investigator Britney Schmidt of Georgia Tech, will determine possible means of detecting biological activity in those systems.
Meanwhile, the center is connecting this new community of NfoLD researchers by building an interactive repository of information where researchers can explore and debate approaches in life detection that may one day be used to search for evidence of life on other worlds.
“The search for life beyond Earth cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Hoehler. “To give ourselves the best shot at success, we need to develop tools and strategies that are tailored to detecting life in the unique conditions of other worlds, which are very different not only from Earth but also from each other.”
NfoLD’s three founding teams are expected to be joined in the coming year by dozens of new teams that are pursuing life detection-themed science or technology development. It represents a relatively new organizing model (https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/nasas-astrobiology-program-evolving-to-meet-the-future/) supported by NASA, called a research coordination network. NASA’s Astrobiology Program (https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/) organized its first successful one in 2015 — the Nexus for Exoplanet System Science (https://nexss.info/), which was formed to study the habitability of planets beyond our solar system. NfoLD is the second one to come online with at least three more expected to form in future years in areas of astrobiology.



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/new-nasa-team-tackles-next-challenges-in-detecting-life-beyond-earth

Also, even just the titles of these should help you understand:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/nasa-dives-deep-into-the-search-for-life

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-funded-research-creates-dna-like-molecule-to-aid-search-for-alien-life

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/is-mars-soil-too-dry-to-sustain-life

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/sugar-is-sweet-essential-to-life-and-its-probably-in-deep-space

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/will-we-know-life-when-we-see-it-nasa-led-group-takes-stock-of-the-science

Many, many more, if I look...

[Gunny]

NopeAs I said. You could be shot out of the sky flying an airplane, slam into the ground and burst into flames, and you'd STILL swear you are still flying.

You're about gullible as Hell too. Geez what a sheep :laugh:

[pete311]

NASA is a scientific agency and wants to find scientific explanations to some big questions. I don’t know more what to say. I am certainly excited to hear of any developments. What would be your reaction to evidence of life or past life on somewhere other than earth or do you consider it impossible? It’s been estimated there are trillions of galaxies in our universes. Probability says we aren’t the only life. What’s the point of so much wasted space to a god? I would never let him run a business :)

[Abbey Marie]

NASA is a scientific agency and wants to find scientific explanations to some big questions. I don’t know more what to say. I am certainly excited to hear of any developments. What would be your reaction to evidence of life or past life on somewhere other than earth or do you consider it impossible? It’s been estimated there are trillions of galaxies in our universes. Probability says we aren’t the only life. What’s the point of so much wasted space to a god? I would never let him run a business :)

You know, He can hear you...
:coffee:

To answer your question, no one can know the mind or intent of God.
Perhaps, like my earlier in this thread quotation from Psalms, He just wants us to see His glory in the Universe.
Or maybe He did create life elsewhere. And what hubris would it take for me to state "It's impossible"!
The same incredible hubris it takes to say God is a fiction. And to try to convince others that He is.

I really have no problem with the concept of looking for life in space per se. What I don't care for is the emhasis on it and the agenda behind it- to try to debunk an Intelligent Designer. (There is a reason that so many Atheists love the search). Not that I think they ever can, but the time and money and attempts to destroy faith irk me. I would hate to be responsible for turning someone else away from God- like your youth camp minister.

Btw, what do you think we gain if we do find signs of former life, say on Mars?
Perhaps some non-relevant-to-Earth microbiological tidbits, but what of import besides trying to destroy Creationism?
And if we find fully developed beings, shouldn't we be worried for our planet? What if they want to land here and take our resources? I don't think a wall will help.


Just one more, to emphasize the point:


NASA - Science Goals
May 25, 2006






Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's science investigations and engineering instruments directly support the Mars Exploration Program's overall science strategy of "Following the Water." The four science goals that support this strategy for discovery are:

Goal 1: Determine Whether Life Ever Arose on Mars

The presence of liquid water on Mars, past or present, is a key clue in revealing whether Mars ever harbored life. From the tiniest microbe to more complex organisms, life as we know it could not exist without liquid water. The Reconnaissance Orbiter's scientific payload includes instruments to zero in on water-related surface features such as outflow channels from ancient floods, and to study water-related mineral deposits in Mars' rocks and soil. Cameras and spectrometers will carry out these searches, and a sounder will use radar to search for liquid water beneath the martian surface.








Image right: This artist's concept shows the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter using its Shallow Radar to "look" under the surface of Mars.

[Abbey Marie]

@darin (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=19)

I'm sorry if I've derailed your thread. Feel free to split off the posts about NASA/life

:salute:

[pete311]

I really have no problem with the concept of looking for life in space per se. What I don't care for is the emhasis on it and the agenda behind it- to try to debunk an Intelligent Designer. (There is a reason that so many Atheists love the search). Not that I think they ever can, but the time and money and attempts to destroy faith irk me. I would hate to be responsible for turning someone else away from God- like your youth camp minister.

Btw, what do you think we gain if we do find signs of former life, say on Mars?
Perhaps some non-relevant-to-Earth microbiological tidbits, but what of import besides trying to destroy Creationism?
And if we find fully developed beings, shouldn't we be worried for our planet? What if they want to land here and take our resources? I don't think a wall will help.


I think it's erroneous to think thousands of career scientists are working day and night JUST to debunk intelligent design. I don't really think you think that. One possible reason for looking for life or past life is that Earth can't be our only home. We are wrecking it and it will be over populated some day. Maybe not for hundreds of years, but I'd like to think we're going to survive past hundreds of years. For that to happen we need to find places where life can exist. What better place to consider home if it already shows it can support life.

Thank you Abbey for discussing this topic in a worthwhile and enjoyable manner!

[Gunny]

NASA is a scientific agency and wants to find scientific explanations to some big questions. I don’t know more what to say. I am certainly excited to hear of any developments. What would be your reaction to evidence of life or past life on somewhere other than earth or do you consider it impossible? It’s been estimated there are trillions of galaxies in our universes. Probability says we aren’t the only life. What’s the point of so much wasted space to a god? I would never let him run a business :)Again, you're flip-flopping from science to scientific theory, groping for a response. Science is MAN's explanation for what MAN can comprehend. Simple enough.

Scientific theory is just taking half the puzzle and filling in the blank spaces with someone's "educated (or not) GUESS as to what goes there with no REAL knowledge, evidence or fact. If you apply scientific law to scientific theory, the latter falls apart every time.

God is ALWAYS there. He is allowing you to use your free will and make a choice.

[pete311]

Again, you're flip-flopping from science to scientific theory, groping for a response. Science is MAN's explanation for what MAN can comprehend. Simple enough.

Scientific theory is just taking half the puzzle and filling in the blank spaces with someone's "educated (or not) GUESS as to what goes there with no REAL knowledge, evidence or fact. If you apply scientific law to scientific theory, the latter falls apart every time.

God is ALWAYS there. He is allowing you to use your free will and make a choice.

Please learn what science theory and science law are. Read below and consider yourself educated in them and then apply what you've learned to how to respond to me.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY
A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

SCIENTIFIC LAW
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"
https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

[Abbey Marie]

I think it's erroneous to think thousands of career scientists are working day and night JUST to debunk intelligent design. I don't really think you think that. One possible reason for looking for life or past life is that Earth can't be our only home. We are wrecking it and it will be over populated some day. Maybe not for hundreds of years, but I'd like to think we're going to survive past hundreds of years. For that to happen we need to find places where life can exist. What better place to consider home if it already shows it can support life.

Thank you Abbey for discussing this topic in a worthwhile and enjoyable manner!

Thank you, too, Pete. I was just saying this to Russ. I love a respectful, intelligent discussion.

And, yes, I don’t think that is all they research for. But I do think it is by far the favorite goal.

[Gunny]

Please learn what science theory and science law are. Read below and consider yourself educated in them and then apply what you've learned to how to respond to me.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY
A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

SCIENTIFIC LAW
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"
https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html


I know what they both are, shit for brains. They're quite obvious. You, on the other hand apparently can only regurgitate someone else's words, fact and opinion.

But don't worry about it, Pete. I used to think it was me until I realized there are people like you that are just that damned dumb, and willing to prove it.

[pete311]

I know what they both are, shit for brains. They're quite obvious. You, on the other hand apparently can only regurgitate someone else's words, fact and opinion.

But don't worry about it, Pete. I used to think it was me until I realized there are people like you that are just that damned dumb, and willing to prove it.

Obvious and yet all your comments to me show the exact opposite. Put down your pride for once.

[Gunny]

Obvious and yet all your comments to me show the exact opposite. Put down your pride for once.Try following your own advice. You need it more than I.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Thank you, too, Pete. I was just saying this to Russ. I love a respectful, intelligent discussion.

And, yes, I don’t think that is all they research for. But I do think it is by far the favorite goal.
Yeah this is the best debate I've ever seen Pete engage in. Evidently it's something he's passionate about enough to actually debate. It's nice to see.

And I don't fault him for believing what he believes. Lots of people are brain washed into believing this evolution farce, and thinking, just like calling global warming - climate change - that renaming evolution - mutation - or whatever, that moving the goal posts or rebranding it somehow makes it true, it's still a farce. It's like calling the sun a planet, it's not, it's a STAR. But, that's what people do when they're just unwilling to admit they're wrong.