What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

carolinajazz said:
...and this evolutionary means is "natural selection"? "Mutations?" "Survival of the fittest?" ALL proven to be completely BOGUS, unfounded and outright lies!
Click to expand...

Yes, it is done by a simulation of mutation and natural selection (the notion "survival of the fittest" is a not-quite-true simplification). You don't think mutation and selection happen?
 
Majority of the then scientists believed in Ptalomeic version of the universe.
then it was proven to be utterly false!
T.S. Kuhn's "The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions" is a good book on how little majority means in paradigmatic changes in science.
 
Tarkanian said:
Majority of the then scientists believed in Ptalomeic version of the universe.
then it was proven to be utterly false!
Click to expand...

For centuries, the Ptolemaic version of the universe was the best fit for the known evidence. However, as our evidence improved, so did our understanding of the nature of our solar system. With the evidence we have today, we will never return to geocentrism.

For centuries, the creationist version of the universe was the best fit for the known evidence. However, as our evidence improved, so did our understanding of the nature of biology. With the evidence we have today, we will never return to creationism.

Is that what you meant to highlight?
 
One Brow said:
For centuries, the Ptolemaic version of the universe was the best fit for the known evidence. However, as our evidence improved, so did our understanding of the nature of our solar system. With the evidence we have today, we will never return to geocentrism.

For centuries, the creationist version of the universe was the best fit for the known evidence. However, as our evidence improved, so did our understanding of the nature of biology. With the evidence we have today, we will never return to creationism.

Is that what you meant to highlight?
Click to expand...

WE do live in a geocentric system. The other stars are just an illusion projected on to the heavens by purple heathen pixies. I know in my heart that this is the truth and any evidence you think you have is just an illusion. My objections to your "science" will never cease.

You just don't understand the true truth that has always been there for you to see. You blind yourself to the glory of realness and in the end you will pay the ultimate price for it.
 
heyhey said:
1-s2.0-S0092867408007009-gr1.jpg

Here's a dumbed down image for ya
080507-platypus-features-02.jpg
Click to expand...

Until you show us the snakechickengorilla "common ancestor" you are as faithful/speculative as the creationists who would label that "common creator."
 
AKMVP said:
The fact that it can reproduce only with its own kind (underground mosquito ) makes him unique new species - thus with unique new genetic information.
Click to expand...

thus with a unique loss of genetic information (less specificity)=the founder effect
 
AKMVP said:
Not sure at that time it would qualify as science. But One Brow answered it very well for you.
Click to expand...
I don't think that it was meant to be a reply.
I have been saying it all along, tho it has been falling on deaf ears.
Creationist version is NOT less scientific than the evolutionary theorizing.
Both have no chance to be repeated or observed.
Before onebrah wrote that reply, you actually gave the reply that 9x,x% of the scientists are pro-evolution!
Paradigmatic change had already taken place in biology.
It prolly started the moment Darwin set his feet on Galapagos, tho he is not the very first person who came up with the idea of evolution.
The same can happen to it one day!

edit: read Kuhn, if not already done that. You'll like it!
mandatory edit: JV sucks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top