It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

[chalsdk]

True, we don't know everything about everything yet including gravity. I assume you mean 3rd generation sun or 3rd generation solar system, because that's correct, the current theory is that our sun and by extension our solar system is a 3rd generation one, but to talk about a third generation planet would mean a planet that was destroyed and remade for the third time in this solar system which is not the theory.

Aye. your very right - If I remeber korrekt, the Green planet we live on right now, was remade as well, with the sun.

...Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong....

I assume you know then that ALOT(I might be wrong but I have heard over 70% of reseachers in America belives in some kind of God/creative design (I dont belive in creative design in any regard thougt)

Also, by your well reasoned argument, Why whoud multible places in America reword up to 250k US dollers to prove evolution? ?

Yes I've studied in higher education, and it's true that lower school education often simplifies concepts in science or using outdated models that have since been updated/replaced. They are however not LIES, half truths certainly. But they do what they're supposed to, they teach a deep enough understanding of the science is question. Take Niels Bohr's atom model for example, it is almost exclusively what's taught in school and while not exactly incorrect the truth as we know it is far more complex, but if we taught the actual truth to students they'd have to spend their 3 years of gymnasium/high school learning only chemistry, so it explains things well enough but doesn't go into depth since depth at that education level is unnecessary and superfluous.
And no, I've never seen any teacher say this is "Final knowledge" about any things science... except for the Biology teacher who was a member of the Jehovah sect and was subsequently barred from teaching Religion, sex education, evolution and many other parts of the Biology courses for exactly that very reason, being a religious fanatic is mutually exclusive to being a good teacher in these and many other subjects.
But no, teaching evolution in school as opposed to the religious mumbo jumbo fairy tale explanation for the creation of the world is absolutely correct, Religion has even less evidence and fact to support it's claims that there is a magical fairy supreme being.

I dont mind them telling ? lies/truths, as long as they do the students a favor - Saying its ether What we know so far OR ITs a Quite simpled down. (I might had bad teachers..)

About thes Jehovah - I like them.. ITs very hard to find people who will willing come to my own dor, and debate the bible. I find it just a shame they are soo succesfull, and jet so limited in their understanding of what it says. Sceince can be a Great help here - Like the Cross was real..

About FINAL knowede, even in religion I find it a bit hard to say, at least in christendom, there is alot of "dont knows" but Good ideas and solutions, but might be something else.
Just like in sceince, there is(might be) some final knowede.. like we live on this green rock - and we got our own sun.. Pritty basic - Long story short I find them similar, and I agree with you in that regard.

... But please, if you wanna play that card then come up with absolute and incontrovertible evidence that there is a magical fairytale supreme being watching over us. And then there's the issue about who's "right" there's a bazillion religions and most of them are mutually exclusive(we're right and you're wrong". Personally I think this would be an absolute horror if it turned out to be true in the case of one of the Abrahmitic religions because the Abrahmitic "God" comes across as a cruel and mean deity with an obsessive need for self glorification. So if any religion turns out to be true I hope it's one of the others, the Norse one maybe, or the Buddhist one, or maybe the Mayan one? Damn how screwed we'd be if a long dead religion turned out to be the real one. And that's my issue with the opposing side, there's absolutely not even a single shred of evidence or fact(scientific or otherwise) of any kind, it's all "we're right and you're wrong and that makes you a heretic, so if we feel like it today have to kill you"

Its quite hard to be a heritic today. By any means there is only One Church in the ayes of God - The ones that follow christ(as the people)- So it might be some of one church - some people that dont even go to church. Can I know I am being right? Not realy.

In islam, its pritty easy. And if your a jew - I got no clue. Jewism and christen are quite similar (on their view on God) unlike islam. Allthougt they claim the same rot.

On the Norse thing.. Well - Might makes right then. Better not be a female, and if so a sheldmaiden. Being old is bad as well - Need to die in battle with Glory! OR else!

--> On this topic of MOST RIGHT - I think I am pritty open minded. And let peaple dicide for themself, but lets be frank about it.

Teach Neutral about evolution, I dont mind the teory, as long as it is just that. We can call creation a teory as well. I am cool with that..


----> KEY "Because there's no absolute truth to what's better,.."

To alot of people this is very true. But we also got to recon that the biggest mass murders in the history have been just that, ateists. The simply lack the "I cant do this, becourse of divine stuf" Also ateism can and are by alot of peaple treaded like a religion in its own right - that used to be called Cult of Reason. (Without the evo part)

Just to make sure - There is not wourse of bad peaple in my view, We are just all humies. Some are christians, some muslims, some hindues and jet some other things. But whatever we are, it all change how we view difffent topics, like What is love. And this is the very Core of this.

HOW do one look what love is.. And is it not love to protect your gene seed?

Also - Thx for the Great reply

[Folle]

2nd.

Your english teacher really sucked. So did your danish teacher. Stop writing some words in large letters already, we dont use that in danish either.

[chalsdk]

2nd.

Your english teacher really sucked. So did your danish teacher. Stop writing some words in large letters already, we dont use that in danish either.

Stop being a ****

[Palem]

Ell, I think you're backtracking. You can't make a statement like this...

As long as there's even the slightest bit of doubt they're gonna grab a hold of that and blow it out of proportion.

and then hide behind a statement like this...

And again you're mistaking the meaning and definition of a fact, you're mistaking it for the definition of a mathematical fact which are absolute since mathematics is a formal science(as opposed to natural sciences) there can be absolutes. Or perhaps you're mistaking if for the everyday definition of a fact which is also perceived as an absolute and incontrovertible.
The definition of a scientific fact however is much less rigid, or as it's more usually called, a scientific proof(and here I'm going to quote wikipedia rather than bother to write a lengthy explanation saying the exact same thing. "Proof has other meanings as it descends from its Latin roots (provable, probable, probare(L)) meaning to test. In this sense a proof is an inference to the best or most parsimonious explanation through a publicly verifiable demonstration (a test) of the factual (i.e., observed) and causal evidence from carefully controlled experiments."

The "slightest bit of doubt" is where 100% of all scientific research lies. Bashing people for suggesting alternative theories and then hiding behind the lenient definition of a scientific fact which allows the possibility of being wrong is trying to have your cake and eat it too.'

You're either positive that our current theory of evolution is absolutely, objectively correct, or you believe that our current theories are wrong (even if it's just small parts). There is no middle ground. To believe that we have the theory 100% correct would be naive considering we don't have a 100% complete knowledge of the building blocks of Evolution (genetics, biology, ect). That's all I was trying to say and I'm pretty sure that's all chalsdk was trying to say.

And knock it off folle. Not everyone speaks English well.

[Elldallan]

Ell, I think you're backtracking. You can't make a statement like this...


and then hide behind a statement like this...


The "slightest bit of doubt" is where 100% of all scientific research lies. Bashing people for suggesting alternative theories and then hiding behind the lenient definition of a scientific fact which allows the possibility of being wrong is trying to have your cake and eat it too.'

I might have expressed myself badly but what I was trying to get across was that the religious(generally) people who usually makes those ridiculous challenges etc and sprouts those opinion(not saying that chals in particular is one of these) are pretty much always of the sort "we're right until you prove with 100% absolute infallible certainty that you are". That is my issue with those religious nutcases and their challenges, and frankly I despise them for it, they have the same obligation to prove their view as science does, in fact I'd say they have a bigger one because many of their claims goes against all sense and logic.

Instead of making those silly challenges(because the onus of proof is on the one with the least sensible explanation based the least in fact/science etc) they should start producing a fact based empirical theory of their own to substantiate their position, until then I think that religion has absolutely no place in education. And no, merely saying that "Science cannot explain this" is not producing evidence, that's just blowing hot air and whoever does that should be ridiculed. What it would involve is producing evidence for something that could not possibly be accomplished in any manner other than that of a higher deity etc(which is arguably as hard as proving evolution of course, but that's where they need to go).

But considering that the people in the west who is most hell bent on making those claims are the same people claiming that the earth is 4000 years old I guess coherent thought is too much to ask from them.

You're either positive that our current theory of evolution is absolutely, objectively correct, or you believe that our current theories are wrong (even if it's just small parts). There is no middle ground. To believe that we have the theory 100% correct would be naive considering we don't have a 100% complete knowledge of the building blocks of Evolution (genetics, biology, ect). That's all I was trying to say and I'm pretty sure that's all chalsdk was trying to say.

I would disagree and say that there is a middle ground, yes to believe that anything in a non formal science is 100% correct is pure folly because our knowledge of everything is incomplete and things might change as we gain more knowledge. However once something has been tested and studied enough it's usually referred to as a fact in science(in physics(which straddles the line between formal and natural sciences) this is usually considered to be when you've passed a 5Sigma error probability) in less formal sciences the process is less clear, usually it's a lot about peer reviewed preponderance studies etc.
But my point is that nobody goes around thinking they're wrong, but they're aware that there's always room for improvement and that that improvement might clash with established science, that's why the Large Hadron Collider was big deal(or as Word auto correction liked to correct it, The Large Hardon Collider :D ).

[Craigus]

I have joined the conversation very late, sorry if I repeat someone.

Teach Neutral about evolution, I dont mind the teory, as long as it is just that. We can call creation a teory as well. I am cool with that..

I have to disagree. Creation isn't a theory like evolution. All the creationists do is try to find gaps in the theory of evolution and claim that to be evidence for creation. When gaps in the evolution theory are filled creationists move on to the next gap.

It's like finding the gap between 1 and 2, then the gap between 1 and 1.5, then the gap between 1 and 1.25 etc. Fossil Record is a great example of this.

Creationists want to witness a species changing into another in 1 or very few generations because they fail to comprehend just how much time evolution needs to experience these changes. What they ask for is a miracle.

If we taught both in schools should we then teach astrology alongside astronomy? Alchemy alongside Chemistry? Magic alongside Gravity?

I do not understand why Evolution is the target of so many religious people when Gravity does not even get a mention, we do not even know what gravity is! whether it is a "gravitron" particle or something else yet to be discovered.

[Palem]

I might have expressed myself badly but what I was trying to get across was that the religious(generally) people who usually makes those ridiculous challenges etc and sprouts those opinion(not saying that chals in particular is one of these) are pretty much always of the sort "we're right until you prove with 100% absolute infallible certainty that you are". That is my issue with those religious nutcases and their challenges, and frankly I despise them for it, they have the same obligation to prove their view as science does, in fact I'd say they have a bigger one because many of their claims goes against all sense and logic.

1. Isn't that what everyone does though? You're not going to believe that Evolution is wrong unless someone comes along and 100%, without a doubt, disproves it. Even if someone comes along with an equally plausible theory, I doubt you would believe that Evolution is wrong because there's a competing theory.

2. Why do you despise them for encouraging science? Science by it's very nature is meant to be questioned and poked and prodded and have it's flaws called out and questioned. If there's something missing in a theory, not only is it their right to question it, it's the obligation of science to explore it and actually find the thing that's missing. Don't get me wrong, some questions and challenges are downright stupid, but if no one asks stupid things then no one learns. Even if the redneck hillybilly refuses to believe that God couldn't have created the Earth 4000 years ago because we have rocks and trees that are older than that currently on Earth, maybe his son will come to the realization that there's absolutely no way that adds up.

Instead of making those silly challenges(because the onus of proof is on the one with the least sensible explanation based the least in fact/science etc) they should start producing a fact based empirical theory of their own to substantiate their position, until then I think that religion has absolutely no place in education. And no, merely saying that "Science cannot explain this" is not producing evidence, that's just blowing hot air and whoever does that should be ridiculed. What it would involve is producing evidence for something that could not possibly be accomplished in any manner other than that of a higher deity etc(which is arguably as hard as proving evolution of course, but that's where they need to go).

But considering that the people in the west who is most hell bent on making those claims are the same people claiming that the earth is 4000 years old I guess coherent thought is too much to ask from them.

I think you're being a little harsh. Yes, there are some things that are on that "You've got to be f'ing kidding me" level, but there are plenty of very smart people (scientists even) that believes god exists and plays/played a real practical role in the universe. You act like it's some sort of easy request to prove their theories or provide solid evidence. How do you prove that someone created something without an actual historical record of the time? Let's pretend that all of our records only date back to the 2000. How do you prove that Tim Berners-Lee invented the Internet in 1990 and have like actual, solid proof? Especially if no one believed your crazy theory just because you've been told that's who did it. I mean, I think I'm fairly clever and I honestly would have no idea where to begin. Stack on top of that, the fact that Berners-Lee is an actual person and not a divine being that a lot of people actually doubt the existence of in the first place. I'm not saying religious beliefs are above being proven, but understand that asking someone to prove that God created man and asking for proof that man evolved from a more primitive being are two completely different different tasks.

Also, suggesting that using the argument that "science can not explain this" should be ridiculed is a bit of a blanket statement. Using that as a scape goat when you can't explain yourself any further is just arguing, but there are arguments that god created the universe that are sort of reliant on this. For example, during the Planck epoch, time doesn't necessarily function in a linear manner*, which means all concepts of "science" that we have ceases to exist for the first moments of the universe's existence and science truly can not tell us what is happening. We can only provide very rough theories for what may have been happening based on what was happening directly after that, but we really can't test anything from it.

*this is as I learned it, from a professor that was totally not religious in any fashion. I haven't had much study in cosmology after that, so maybe that's not totally accurate, idk.

I would disagree and say that there is a middle ground, yes to believe that anything in a non formal science is 100% correct is pure folly because our knowledge of everything is incomplete and things might change as we gain more knowledge. However once something has been tested and studied enough it's usually referred to as a fact in science(in physics(which straddles the line between formal and natural sciences) this is usually considered to be when you've passed a 5Sigma error probability) in less formal sciences the process is less clear, usually it's a lot about peer reviewed preponderance studies etc.
But my point is that nobody goes around thinking they're wrong, but they're aware that there's always room for improvement and that that improvement might clash with established science, that's why the Large Hadron Collider was big deal(or as Word auto correction liked to correct it, The Large Hardon Collider :D ).

I'm a mathematical person. I studied math, so asking me to consider a fact as something that may not be 100% true is hard, especially when there are scientific stuff that we do actually know 100% about. Things like Hydrogen having 1 proton and 1 neutron, or that photons travel at the speed of light. I realize that these things seem sort of "true by definition", but if we ever find something wrong Evolution, we're just going rewrite the definition of evolution, so we're always going to have the "definition" of Evolution be right, unless we have a huge breakthrough and Evolution ends up being totally wrong lol.

So I'm going to commit the ultimate sin of discussion and agree to disagree on this point :p. I'm mostly just tired of going back of forth on the definition of a scientific fact lol

I do not understand why Evolution is the target of so many religious people when Gravity does not even get a mention, we do not even know what gravity is! whether it is a "gravitron" particle or something else yet to be discovered.

Gravity is a highly discussed topic among scientists. If you mean why religious people don't bring it up to attack science, I don't actually think the bible (or any other religious texts that I know of) ever comments on why things fall to the ground, so they can't really cite any passages and say that God's responsible for it. As unstable a leg as quoting a bible passage is, they wouldn't even have that leg to stand on :p. But, I'm not a bible expert or anything, so maybe that passage is there somewhere and people just don't bring it up, idk lol

[Craigus]

Gravity is a highly discussed topic among scientists. If you mean why religious people don't bring it up to attack science, I don't actually think the bible (or any other religious texts that I know of) ever comments on why things fall to the ground, so they can't really cite any passages and say that God's responsible for it. As unstable a leg as quoting a bible passage is, they wouldn't even have that leg to stand on :p. But, I'm not a bible expert or anything, so maybe that passage is there somewhere and people just don't bring it up, idk lol

They have plenty of passages that defy gravity like the parting of the seas, a magic man walking on water or rising from the grave. You would think they would attack Sir Isaac Newtons credibility to prove all these things can happen.

It's only a matter of time until they accept Darwin's theory of evolution. They did eventually come around to Galileo, just took a while. Just imagine the can of worms that will be opened when we turn chemistry into biology, that is after all their biggest gap they go to when it comes to evolution.

[pathetic sheep]

*this is as I learned it, from a professor that was totally not religious in any fashion. I haven't had much study in cosmology after that, so maybe that's not totally accurate, idk.

Quantum mechanics and things derived from it sound weird when stated in spoken sentences. This tells you a lot about the compatibility of spoken languages and mathematics. It does not give you a reason to draw conclusions about social things like racism.

Suppose you know the following: An explosion happened. It blew up your house (or apartment) your dog etc. It was 20 pounds of tovex borrowed from a mining corporation located in West Virginia. It used a cell phone lithium ion battery and copper current leads. Investigators say the remains of the wires probably melted and then splattered.

What you do not know is whether the tips of the copper wires were twisted clockwise or counter clockwise.

There is clearly an uncertainty. The details are in doubt. Should you still hope your dog is alive, perhaps the corpse is not really him? Should the police wait with making an arrest until all the facts are in? Should the insurance company deny your home insurance claim because the cause of the damage is unknown?

[Palem]

They have plenty of passages that defy gravity like the parting of the seas, a magic man walking on water or rising from the grave. You would think they would attack Sir Isaac Newtons credibility to prove all these things can happen.

It's only a matter of time until they accept Darwin's theory of evolution. They did eventually come around to Galileo, just took a while. Just imagine the can of worms that will be opened when we turn chemistry into biology, that is after all their biggest gap they go to when it comes to evolution.

Most of those things are defined as miracles, performed by prophets. The reason they're exceptional is that there's an underlying understanding that things fall down to Earth.

And I agree they'll believe it eventually. Most religious people don't actually argue all that much with science. Even the new cool guy pope was like "Yea, no they're definitely right" and that may or may not be a direct quote.

Quantum mechanics and things derived from it sound weird when stated in spoken sentences. This tells you a lot about the compatibility of spoken languages and mathematics. It does not give you a reason to draw conclusions about social things like racism.

Suppose you know the following: An explosion happened. It blew up your house (or apartment) your dog etc. It was 20 pounds of tovex borrowed from a mining corporation located in West Virginia. It used a cell phone lithium ion battery and copper current leads. Investigators say the remains of the wires probably melted and then splattered.

What you do not know is whether the tips of the copper wires were twisted clockwise or counter clockwise.

There is clearly an uncertainty. The details are in doubt. Should you still hope your dog is alive, perhaps the corpse is not really him? Should the police wait with making an arrest until all the facts are in? Should the insurance company deny your home insurance claim because the cause of the damage is unknown?

I wasn't defending the evolution -> racism claim. I already discussed that earlier in the thread with my 'different =/= better' argument.

All I was saying in the thing you're quoting is that there are things that science can not explain. The best you can do is derive theories based off the science we do know, but if you can't test it, it's not science.

[chalsdk]

To just make a few things clear.

Elldallan & others - I never claimed I support Creative design - I think you mix stuf up, and its becourse your very American centric in your view. At any regard I dont. I support The Pure Version of it. AKA Creation. How that is done, Dunno. Can sceince give good hints, sure, Do I look for em, no.

About the Gravity argument I did bring up - and was recommented - I do always bring it up to show that we are Sky high on our selves - and our understanding is very limited.

The Claim about Galileo is a piss poor understanding of the time and the problem. The problem with him was an entire other thing. on this topic, Read your Quran, that is where the flat earth comes from.


About the bible and Gravity argument. As Palin allready said, Wunders by profets and like - or God own son, hardly a problem for a divine to act in our world. He did have the option to come down on hourses made of burning gold that is solid flying in the air, dumping Banas on us if he so desire.
Generelly there is no such claim the in the bible about Gravati. Its hardly up for debate, its ether there or not - and its not.

On this topic - let me remind some of you, since its seams like your burning with passion for this very topic - Basis religion states that its ALL true - as if one thing is wrong - as if jesus said, its perfectly okay to drink from lakes and walls with dead animals - And we can find out that is playing with death -> Then the entire religion is FALSE .-> IF - but IF! -> its states this is a a fact, and not up for debate.
However plenty of what jesus said, or paul, can be argued, what did he say and mean! - some of it is not up for debate, its just that. Like Can we prove jesus and paul was a thing - YES - can we prove jesus was God?s own son, no. Can we disprove it, no! Can we prove you might die if you drink of poluted water - yes!

Evolution is a teory - To claim otherwise is foolish. Poor understanding of the evolution. I can bring up 5 massive huge problems right here.
Creation is also a teory - It can not be proved OR disproved. I poor understanding of the bible argument will be 7 days created - but then, if there is no sun, how long is a day ?? and if time is null and void, why use this thing? And to explain ?ber complicated things to earthlings with no real understanding of time(that came with prayer horny monks) - you need explain it in a manor they can understand to some degree.
IF you don buy this then
--> scripture says one day for a man is 1000 years for God, and the other way around. God does not exist in time.

To return to the OP topic - IF evolution is abselute true - Why is right, right - or wrong wrong??

[khronosschoty]

To just make a few things clear.

Elldallan & others - I never claimed I support Creative design - I think you mix stuf up, and its becourse your very American centric in your view. At any regard I dont. I support The Pure Version of it. AKA Creation. How that is done, Dunno. Can sceince give good hints, sure, Do I look for em, no.

About the Gravity argument I did bring up - and was recommented - I do always bring it up to show that we are Sky high on our selves - and our understanding is very limited.

The Claim about Galileo is a piss poor understanding of the time and the problem. The problem with him was an entire other thing. on this topic, Read your Quran, that is where the flat earth comes from.


About the bible and Gravity argument. As Palin allready said, Wunders by profets and like - or God own son, hardly a problem for a divine to act in our world. He did have the option to come down on hourses made of burning gold that is solid flying in the air, dumping Banas on us if he so desire.
Generelly there is no such claim the in the bible about Gravati. Its hardly up for debate, its ether there or not - and its not.

On this topic - let me remind some of you, since its seams like your burning with passion for this very topic - Basis religion states that its ALL true - as if one thing is wrong - as if jesus said, its perfectly okay to drink from lakes and walls with dead animals - And we can find out that is playing with death -> Then the entire religion is FALSE .-> IF - but IF! -> its states this is a a fact, and not up for debate.
However plenty of what jesus said, or paul, can be argued, what did he say and mean! - some of it is not up for debate, its just that. Like Can we prove jesus and paul was a thing - YES - can we prove jesus was God?s own son, no. Can we disprove it, no! Can we prove you might die if you drink of poluted water - yes!

Evolution is a teory - To claim otherwise is foolish. Poor understanding of the evolution. I can bring up 5 massive huge problems right here.
Creation is also a teory - It can not be proved OR disproved. I poor understanding of the bible argument will be 7 days created - but then, if there is no sun, how long is a day ?? and if time is null and void, why use this thing? And to explain ?ber complicated things to earthlings with no real understanding of time(that came with prayer horny monks) - you need explain it in a manor they can understand to some degree.
IF you don buy this then
--> scripture says one day for a man is 1000 years for God, and the other way around. God does not exist in time.

To return to the OP topic - IF evolution is abselute true - Why is right, right - or wrong wrong??

Could hardly make heads or tails but agreed with much.

[Craigus]

Evolution is a teory - To claim otherwise is foolish. Poor understanding of the evolution. I can bring up 5 massive huge problems right here.
Creation is also a teory - It can not be proved OR disproved. I poor understanding of the bible argument will be 7 days created - but then, if there is no sun, how long is a day ?? and if time is null and void, why use this thing? And to explain ?ber complicated things to earthlings with no real understanding of time(that came with prayer horny monks) - you need explain it in a manor they can understand to some degree.
IF you don buy this then
--> scripture says one day for a man is 1000 years for God, and the other way around. God does not exist in time.

To return to the OP topic - IF evolution is abselute true - Why is right, right - or wrong wrong??

I think you need to understand what a Scientific Theory is my friend.

From Rational Wiki:
"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested."

Evolution has been tested for over 150 years. It has made predictions which have been tested and confirmed. Predictions were made before DNA testing was invented and it was correct, predictions were made that a fossil will be found in Canada that provided the link between sea and land animals, this was found and named Tiktaalik. All the evidence and predictions have reinforced the idea that species have evolved over a very long time rather than one big creation event as explained in holy books.

Creation, aka Intelligent Design, is not a theory because it makes no predictions, it is not testable and there is way too much evidence that is against a one off creation event. Just to name a couple from the top of my head:

Kangaroos are found no where else in the world besides Australia, how can there be no fossils anywhere else in the world if all species were onboard Noahs Ark?

Not one fossil has been found that is outside its time zone, eg no rabbit fossils found amongst dinosaur bones.

Creation is just anti science. It does nothing but try and hold people back from accepting reality. It is based on a book written thousands of years ago by iron age peasants who didnt even know the Earth orbited the sun. It is humans very primitive attempt to explain the universe, and they were wrong.

You can find people who believe in witchcraft, unicorns or there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. None can be proven wrong but they are just stupid to believe. Using your logic should we consider them theories as well?

[chalsdk]

I think you need to understand what a Scientific Theory is my friend.

I think your wrong, I know my stuf - I had my own prof. at university change his picking of words, simply becourse he did teach lies, and that these lies are quite commen and most dont care to look into em, just take em good faith. And I call them lies as the book we got Clearly said This is what we think we know,Our generel Idea - But he said THIS IS FACT! I did take me 90 ish days to make him eat it, and say our idea so far..

From Rational Wiki:
"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested."

AND that you can explain why. And this is why Gravati is so key, We simply Got no key why things drop to the ground. We can tell they do, but dont know why. Even mundane things we got no clue on - Your point is this is pure Aurogant - and simply Your the one who do not look into things. Just take things out as they fit your world view.

Evolution has been tested for over 150 years. It has made predictions which have been tested and confirmed. Predictions were made before DNA testing was invented and it was correct, predictions were made that a fossil will be found in Canada that provided the link between sea and land animals, this was found and named Tiktaalik. All the evidence and predictions have reinforced the idea that species have evolved over a very long time rather than one big creation event as explained in holy books.

Has it? If so I got a Few things I like to have explained myself? Like why Females exist.(We come from bakterier, and where does the Genders come from?..) It makes no sence, and slows down and limits our race spreed. Also Why do these missing links always turn up to be frauds?
There is multi massive Gigantic holes in evolution. Like Genders or Darwinian Evolution has no fraktion of fact/prof.

Its an idea, A good one, and the best we have come up with jet, but still, only an idea, with no backing what so ever that is what you call Fact or sceince.

Creation, aka Intelligent Design, is not a theory because it makes no predictions, it is not testable and there is way too much evidence that is against a one off creation event. Just to name a couple from the top of my head:

No they are not the same. Plz come out of your predice and look things up. Intelegent Design AND creation is NO where the same. Intelegent disegn accept some evolution, and Creation does not, and says we where Created humies! Fall from Edan and all that jazz.

Kangaroos are found no where else in the world besides Australia, how can there be no fossils anywhere else in the world if all species were onboard Noahs Ark?

I dont know. Good point. Adaption comes to mind, but dont know.

Not one fossil has been found that is outside its time zone, eg no rabbit fossils found amongst dinosaur bones.

I can se why this can be a problem, but it dont have to be. Plenty of ways to get around it. How long is one day for God? that leads to why did they ever exist - I dont know, do I find it interesting topic, sure, but I dont know. Do I understand it ? No - but hey, sceince cant even explain everyday things, like Gravity.

Creation is just anti science. It does nothing but try and hold people back from accepting reality. It is based on a book written thousands of years ago by iron age peasants who didnt even know the Earth orbited the sun. It is humans very primitive attempt to explain the universe, and they were wrong.

Your point is ULTRA bias - and with a piss poor understand of alot of things, over 40% of american reaches belive in God - And I assume you can agree that American is the current sceince leader in the world.. If not, we got nothing to debate. Also, jews get WAY to many nobels prices in medicine and nature related stuf (like physics) - And they are hardly ALL hardcore belivers in evolution - very religius peaple.

You can find people who believe in witchcraft, unicorns or there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. None can be proven wrong but they are just stupid to believe. Using your logic should we consider them theories as well?

Go back and Read it. Belive in the wind if you experince the wind. If you dont, you dont belive in it. And dont worship the Idea of an God, but have an relationship with the God-Dude AKA talk to him, and get a replay, just as you go outside and feel the wind!

[Craigus]

I think your wrong, I know my stuf - I had my own prof. at university change his picking of words, simply becourse he did teach lies, and that these lies are quite commen and most dont care to look into em, just take em good faith. And I call them lies as the book we got Clearly said This is what we think we know,Our generel Idea - But he said THIS IS FACT! I did take me 90 ish days to make him eat it, and say our idea so far..

Can you please explain? I am not sure what this is referring to?

AND that you can explain why. And this is why Gravati is so key, We simply Got no key why things drop to the ground. We can tell they do, but dont know why. Even mundane things we got no clue on - Your point is this is pure Aurogant - and simply Your the one who do not look into things. Just take things out as they fit your world view.

"Why" you ask? why implies there is a purpose for things being the way they are. You should be asking how? you need to look at the evidence to determine the most plausible solution to the problem.

My world view is shaped by the evidence, the evidence is not shaped by my world view.

Has it? If so I got a Few things I like to have explained myself? Like why Females exist.(We come from bakterier, and where does the Genders come from?..) It makes no sence, and slows down and limits our race spreed. Also Why do these missing links always turn up to be frauds?
There is multi massive Gigantic holes in evolution. Like Genders or Darwinian Evolution has no fraktion of fact/prof.
Its an idea, A good one, and the best we have come up with jet, but still, only an idea, with no backing what so ever that is what you call Fact or sceince.

Please explain these "Gigantic holes".

"Why females exist?" you are implying there is a purpose behind it. You should probably ask how males exist since the y chromosome contains very little of our genetic makeup so more than likely females came before Males.

Before Darwin, life was just a miracle. His "idea" has changed the world and could be the greatest discovery in human history.

No they are not the same. Plz come out of your predice and look things up. Intelegent Design AND creation is NO where the same. Intelegent disegn accept some evolution, and Creation does not, and says we where Created humies! Fall from Edan and all that jazz.

Look up the trials of Dover. They were attempting to teach Intelligent design in schools. During the trials they found many times that they forgot to replace the word "creation" with "intelligent design". Intelligent design is just a creationists attempt to sound scientific.

Here is a doco if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

I dont know. Good point. Adaption comes to mind, but dont know.

If me, a layman, can provide these points which contradict your story, then I suggest you look into the evidence for evolution with an open mind.

I can se why this can be a problem, but it dont have to be. Plenty of ways to get around it. How long is one day for God? that leads to why did they ever exist - I dont know, do I find it interesting topic, sure, but I dont know. Do I understand it ? No - but hey, sceince cant even explain everyday things, like Gravity.

Science cannot explain everything but science can obtain the most likely answers to our questions. The problem with creation is that it assumes the answer gained from the bible or Quran, then picks and chooses the evidence which supports their story while ignoring the contradictions. How does asking "how long is one day for god?" benefit anyone? you have to establish a god or gods exists before you can ask that question.

Your point is ULTRA bias - and with a piss poor understand of alot of things, over 40% of american reaches belive in God - And I assume you can agree that American is the current sceince leader in the world.. If not, we got nothing to debate. Also, jews get WAY to many nobels prices in medicine and nature related stuf (like physics) - And they are hardly ALL hardcore belivers in evolution - very religius peaple.

50% of Americans could not answer how long it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun. Should we take their word for it too? America has some great scientists, having great scientists doesn't automatically make the general population smarter. Many scientists identify themselves as Jewish while also being atheist. Lawrence Krauss is one of them. Well over 90% of scientists accept evolution, that figure is closer to 100 than it is 90.

Go back and Read it. Belive in the wind if you experince the wind. If you dont, you dont belive in it. And dont worship the Idea of an God, but have an relationship with the God-Dude AKA talk to him, and get a replay, just as you go outside and feel the wind!

I prayed when I was a kid, never got an answer. Wind has evidence which we can feel, explain and predict, none of the gods have evidence. With the thousands of gods in human history what makes you think that you were lucky enough to just so happen to be brought up with the teachings of the one true god. If you believe in a particular god, how did you dismiss all the other gods? God should be irrelevant in this conversation because we should only be looking at the evidence to find our answers. You can believe in or not believe in whatever god you like, all I ask is you look at what you can see in reality to determine the most probable answers.