creationist vs evolutionists debate, the big one.

I think you misunderstood me. When I mentioned "observation", I meant as in someone was there to witness the result occur. For your statistical example, someone has to witness the how and why the ratio of eggs to sausage became 4:1, otherwise no valid conclusion can be made from it at all.

Which is the main problem with evolution. Sure there is evidence, but there is no way we can "witness" the actual result taking place as evolution is supposed to be a process that takes years overtime. The only thing we can do to investigate evolution is record the species observed along with the characteristics, and let the next generation take over the experiment and do the same thing. Testing the theory of evolution doesn't take days or months of simple experiments; it takes years and decades of research.

I'm sorry you disagree with the dictionary, but your interpretation of 'trust' and 'assume' still does not make it so. 'Trust' is a stronger degree of thought commitment than 'assume', so it is illogical to make a weaker commitment to the same thought after you have made a strong commitment to it.

Just because "you don't care because it's not your native language" does not make your opinion valid at all.

Your conclusion (presented at translation) does not remotely fit your logic flow. Plus, your first statement is very questionable as you are supposing that creationism can absolutely disprove evolution under the basis that either creationism happened, or evolution happened exclusively while ignoring all other possible causes that can explain the reason why.

And yes, you are right, disproving evolution does not support creationism. In order for creationism theory to be supported, there has to be at least one piece of scientific evidence showing that creationism possibly happened. To this date, there has yet to be a single piece of scientific evidence supporting creationism, so there is no way anybody can possibly defend the idea of creationism with the absence of evidence.

 

Yes we can, you should do a little research before making assumptions -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

 

Nice find! However, it unfortunately doesn't show (beyond reason of doubt) how species have evolved from other species. This is just an example of micro-evolution.

 

god exists, now shut up and repent ppl, you'll find faith isnt so blind after doing so

 

Fair enough.

Maybe this will be better -> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article884624.ece

Please give evidence

Repentance requires that god can be sinned against and offended, if your god is offended by thinking and debate then your god is a savage not worthy of worship.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." - Mark Twain

 

species don't magically change from one to another this is why creationist don't understand it.
something will change gradually until there is enough change from its original form that it needs to be classed as a new species and there is lots of evidence for that

 

That's absolutely correct. But in order for the evolution theory to become a law, what scientists need to do is collect genetic data of offspring of any species, noting any changes in its genetic structure, as well as its physical appearance. This is where years and decades of research should be invested to prove evolution is absolutely true beyond reason of doubt. Once the species of offspring produced becomes completely different compared to the very first offspring observed in the past, it will prove that evolution is in fact true, and Science can now say that evolution is a law, not a theory.

 

i dont know how to reply to indivdual ppl and have a white box that shows what they said anyway, prinnydood. Give evidence? ok open your eyes, repent and be enlightened and reborn. second thing um no, and anyway your alternative to heaven is hell so where do you perfer to be? in flames, or in blissfull happiness thats a no brainer, dont say hell ill tell you to jump in a fire and you wont do so obviously you dont want that. third mark twain dont know him, but that obvioulsy isnt the case of faith and he's stupid lol well mark twain said it so that mus tbe the case, um no

 

Click the quote button on the top right of a message

That is not evidence. Why do you assume I am not enlightened?

There is no mention of the word hell in the early verions of the bible. Hell was made up, if you believe in it, then you have been conned.

This is a debate about evolution and creationism, it is not a debate about the existance of god. Many people who believe in god do not have a problem with evolution. I would be happy to debate god with you further but this is not the place to do so.

 

My mistake. I don't even know how I arrived at the wrong term. I meant to say, that the theory of evolution would simply become a 'fact' beyond all reasonable doubt.

You know, I thought you were a troll until now.

Perhaps you are not aware that creationism vs. evolution is a scientific issue, not a faith or religion issue. Since this is a scientific discussion, you should provide some scientific evidence that support creationism, not recite verses in the bible or tell us to "repent or go to hell". Religion has no place in this discussion, so either put up some scientific evidence that support your view, or shut up.

 

oh my hypr, y'know what you can defy god in all your last days and choose to scwabble back n forth with ppl all day long, whether he exists or not, and you know what it wont do any good, until you stop being so prideful and arrogant and get on thy knees an acknoledge the father the son and the holy ghost, and say you're sorry for being a piece of garbage well i guess you'll never find out. Because you can ask richard dawkins, you can ask some idiot on the message board or a person down the street or your teacher whether they say well i dont think so or well i believe so, dosnt matter you gotta ask god yourself, dosnt that make sense? yeah it does, anyway just doin gods will, i had my say JESUS IS THE WAY THE LIGHT IN THE TRUTH, and yeah i didnt plan to further "debate" i dont debate anyway no point like i just explained to you, what you choose to do with this info, i really dont care repent, dont. it's up to you what you want your fate to be

 

The lion has spoken and swore so all of you shut it.


I think your all wrong life started after the death of the previous universe.


Example the speck that imploded and created the universe was the last remant of the previous universe

 

Cite a source please. And no, don't cite 'Wikipedia'.

 

@Girogex, your getting into cosmology theory with that post, interesting, but not really related to biological change.

Anyway, found a very good article on the adaptation of shrimps so they can live around toxic volcano vents. These shrimp are a new species and the volcanic activity only began in 2004. So we are looking at a new species which has evolved to cope in an extreme environment in the space of only 5 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505111702.htm

 

did you not read the "I think" part. I have no source but It could be possible just like I can't prove any theory you throw at me you can't prove mine wrong

 

You stated an example:

That example needs a cited source.

Also, just because you throw something that cannot be proved or disproved due to lack of evidence doesn't necessarily make it a valid claim at all.

 

No that example was an example of what I believe. I know it's not a valid claim but neither is god's exsistence a valid claim so narrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhh

 

no one has a valid claim for what started the universe but we are not debating that we are debating whether when all that was all done and the universe was in existence, that we evolved or a man was built by god then a woman from him and then we all descended from that one couple and all the other animals where plonked on the earth along with some dinosaur bones to test our faith.