![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
interim archive, removing off topic discussion on December 20 2006
1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view. 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours?
I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth.
Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points.
You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."
Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.
Fossils of mammals, found tens of millions of year ago, that look exactly like they do today. Through continental shifts, wild temperature changes, mass extinctions, floods, asteroids; they look exactly like they did from the beginning.
Every time something like this has been examined by serious scientists it turns out to be a load of nonsense. Over and over and over. It is amusing the first 5 times. But then it gets very very old. No one wants to dig through your fallacious nonsense because you will not listen to reason anyway. Even if it was proven to you that you were completely wrong on every issue, you would not listen. That is what faith is about. The very definition of faith. Look if your faith is so strong, why do you need proof and lies? Just believe. Just don't bother anyone else and believe whatever you like. Just do not shove it on anyone else. I would like to see this sort of thing made illegal. So you could meet a nice guy named Bubba. -- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
200 million year old lobsters look like 2 year old lobsters
http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=225&data=C&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramatur
There is no mention that gas does not clump in a vacuum, proving the big bang could not have happened, using the very laws of physics that you hold so close.
Nice personal attack.
Follow me.
Gas doesn't clump in a vacuum; therefore Stars were not created in the vacuum of space as a result of the big bang.
There is no mention that no one has ever observed a blue shift.
There is no mention that it's mathematically improbable for evolution to have occurred. No mention that human DNA is so incredibly complex it could not just have come in to being through pure chance.
There is no mention that not enough time has passed for cells to randomly have created the diverse life on earth.
YOu say it was random. You say that the universe and all its contents have come about by just pure happenstance.
I do not. What do you know of what I believe, let alone science? Nothing.-- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - only 1 phylum before, yet 13! afterward.
Evolution is a religion.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.145.177.110 ( talk • contribs).
I would be glad to answer this for you but it has all been answered repeatedly. None of these are new. They were soundly dismissed decades ago. Sorry.-- Filll 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is your point here? I cannot see your point, but maybe that is because you are wearing a hat. -- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Abiogenesis is not the Theory of evolution. Learn your terms before you make a fool of yourself further.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No one says people evolved from monkeys. Learn your science.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know the state of evolutionary simulations, but we have the data to look at, not simulations. Data always trump simulations.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Prove it.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You have amply proved you have complete ignorance of science. Sorry.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect this is just standard quote mining. Let me ask: How sure are you of those quotes you have copied and pasted from some creationist web site? Would you stake your liberty on them? Your life? Would you testify about their accuracy under oath? How about if you were threatened with jail? In a cell with a very friendly cell mate who would make you his "woman"? You ready to go it? You know more than 99.9% of all scientists with scientific backgrounds in biology, at the professional level, believe in evolution? More than 99.84% of almost 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed? That is essentially 100% if you account for noise and survey errors etc. How sure are you that those people in reliable peer-reviewed publications were able to publish material that is contravened by all the data we have? Would you stake your life on it? -- Filll 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Lest we forget! David D. (Talk) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
"Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species. Is this strictly correct? Seems a bit misleading. I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.
In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.
Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg. GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.
1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts. 2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwiniacs claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:199.62.0.252 |199.62.0.252 ]] ([[User talk:199.62.0.252 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/199.62.0.252 |contribs]]) 19:14, 20 December 2006
1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view. 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours?
4. This thread was deleted again, called "trolling". What are you mods afraid of? 5. Filli says "...leaving the door open to creationist nonsense", and you claim that this site and its admins are NOT biased? You must allow all points of view that have basis in fact, regardless of what you think.
I am restoring this thread for the second time.
I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth.
Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points.
You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."
Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.
Fossils of mammals, found tens of millions of year ago, that look exactly like they do today. Through continental shifts, wild temperature changes, mass extinctions, floods, asteroids; they look exactly like they did from the beginning.
Every time something like this has been examined by serious scientists it turns out to be a load of nonsense. Over and over and over. It is amusing the first 5 times. But then it gets very very old. No one wants to dig through your fallacious nonsense because you will not listen to reason anyway. Even if it was proven to you that you were completely wrong on every issue, you would not listen. That is what faith is about. The very definition of faith. Look if your faith is so strong, why do you need proof and lies? Just believe. Just don't bother anyone else and believe whatever you like. Just do not shove it on anyone else. I would like to see this sort of thing made illegal. So you could meet a nice guy named Bubba. -- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
200 million year old lobsters look like 2 year old lobsters
http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=225&data=C&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramatur
There is no mention that gas does not clump in a vacuum, proving the big bang could not have happened, using the very laws of physics that you hold so close.
Nice personal attack.
Follow me.
Gas doesn't clump in a vacuum; therefore Stars were not created in the vacuum of space as a result of the big bang.
There is no mention that no one has ever observed a blue shift.
There is no mention that it's mathematically improbable for evolution to have occurred. No mention that human DNA is so incredibly complex it could not just have come in to being through pure chance.
There is no mention that not enough time has passed for cells to randomly have created the diverse life on earth.
YOu say it was random. You say that the universe and all its contents have come about by just pure happenstance.
I do not. What do you know of what I believe, let alone science? Nothing.-- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - only 1 phylum before, yet 13! afterward.
Evolution is a religion.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.145.177.110 ( talk • contribs).
I would be glad to answer this for you but it has all been answered repeatedly. None of these are new. They were soundly dismissed decades ago. Sorry.-- Filll 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is your point here? I cannot see your point, but maybe that is because you are wearing a hat. -- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Abiogenesis is not the Theory of evolution. Learn your terms before you make a fool of yourself further.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No one says people evolved from monkeys. Learn your science.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know the state of evolutionary simulations, but we have the data to look at, not simulations. Data always trump simulations.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Prove it.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You have amply proved you have complete ignorance of science. Sorry.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect this is just standard quote mining. Let me ask: How sure are you of those quotes you have copied and pasted from some creationist web site? Would you stake your liberty on them? Your life? Would you testify about their accuracy under oath? How about if you were threatened with jail? In a cell with a very friendly cell mate who would make you his "woman"? You ready to go it? You know more than 99.9% of all scientists with scientific backgrounds in biology, at the professional level, believe in evolution? More than 99.84% of almost 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed? That is essentially 100% if you account for noise and survey errors etc. How sure are you that those people in reliable peer-reviewed publications were able to publish material that is contravened by all the data we have? Would you stake your life on it? -- Filll 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Lest we forget! David D. (Talk) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
You present a few mutation out of trillions of creatures over billions of years and say evolution is fact? You ignore the hundreds of thousands of fossils that prove you wrong?
Even Darwin himself had problems with his theory.
No one, anywhere, on earth can say that evolution is factually 100% accurate. None of you have performed double blind tests, found transitional fossils for every creature, or have proven that evolution is a fact; yet you are cliaming that it is. D
Just as I cannot provide any tangible proof that God exists, you cannot provide any proof that evolution is law.
The fact is this: there are many gaping holes in this theory, and you are attempting to quash them.
Belief in Evolution is a religion. You have no more proof that it's real than I do, but your close mindedness prevents you from seeing other sides.
Quit breaking the laws of this site and allow us to post ALL of the facts about this theory.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
interim archive, removing off topic discussion on December 20 2006
1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view. 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours?
I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth.
Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points.
You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."
Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.
Fossils of mammals, found tens of millions of year ago, that look exactly like they do today. Through continental shifts, wild temperature changes, mass extinctions, floods, asteroids; they look exactly like they did from the beginning.
Every time something like this has been examined by serious scientists it turns out to be a load of nonsense. Over and over and over. It is amusing the first 5 times. But then it gets very very old. No one wants to dig through your fallacious nonsense because you will not listen to reason anyway. Even if it was proven to you that you were completely wrong on every issue, you would not listen. That is what faith is about. The very definition of faith. Look if your faith is so strong, why do you need proof and lies? Just believe. Just don't bother anyone else and believe whatever you like. Just do not shove it on anyone else. I would like to see this sort of thing made illegal. So you could meet a nice guy named Bubba. -- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
200 million year old lobsters look like 2 year old lobsters
http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=225&data=C&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramatur
There is no mention that gas does not clump in a vacuum, proving the big bang could not have happened, using the very laws of physics that you hold so close.
Nice personal attack.
Follow me.
Gas doesn't clump in a vacuum; therefore Stars were not created in the vacuum of space as a result of the big bang.
There is no mention that no one has ever observed a blue shift.
There is no mention that it's mathematically improbable for evolution to have occurred. No mention that human DNA is so incredibly complex it could not just have come in to being through pure chance.
There is no mention that not enough time has passed for cells to randomly have created the diverse life on earth.
YOu say it was random. You say that the universe and all its contents have come about by just pure happenstance.
I do not. What do you know of what I believe, let alone science? Nothing.-- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - only 1 phylum before, yet 13! afterward.
Evolution is a religion.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.145.177.110 ( talk • contribs).
I would be glad to answer this for you but it has all been answered repeatedly. None of these are new. They were soundly dismissed decades ago. Sorry.-- Filll 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is your point here? I cannot see your point, but maybe that is because you are wearing a hat. -- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Abiogenesis is not the Theory of evolution. Learn your terms before you make a fool of yourself further.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No one says people evolved from monkeys. Learn your science.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know the state of evolutionary simulations, but we have the data to look at, not simulations. Data always trump simulations.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Prove it.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You have amply proved you have complete ignorance of science. Sorry.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect this is just standard quote mining. Let me ask: How sure are you of those quotes you have copied and pasted from some creationist web site? Would you stake your liberty on them? Your life? Would you testify about their accuracy under oath? How about if you were threatened with jail? In a cell with a very friendly cell mate who would make you his "woman"? You ready to go it? You know more than 99.9% of all scientists with scientific backgrounds in biology, at the professional level, believe in evolution? More than 99.84% of almost 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed? That is essentially 100% if you account for noise and survey errors etc. How sure are you that those people in reliable peer-reviewed publications were able to publish material that is contravened by all the data we have? Would you stake your life on it? -- Filll 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Lest we forget! David D. (Talk) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
"Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species. Is this strictly correct? Seems a bit misleading. I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.
In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.
Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg. GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.
1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts. 2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwiniacs claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:199.62.0.252 |199.62.0.252 ]] ([[User talk:199.62.0.252 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/199.62.0.252 |contribs]]) 19:14, 20 December 2006
1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view. 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours?
4. This thread was deleted again, called "trolling". What are you mods afraid of? 5. Filli says "...leaving the door open to creationist nonsense", and you claim that this site and its admins are NOT biased? You must allow all points of view that have basis in fact, regardless of what you think.
I am restoring this thread for the second time.
I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth.
Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points.
You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."
Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.
Fossils of mammals, found tens of millions of year ago, that look exactly like they do today. Through continental shifts, wild temperature changes, mass extinctions, floods, asteroids; they look exactly like they did from the beginning.
Every time something like this has been examined by serious scientists it turns out to be a load of nonsense. Over and over and over. It is amusing the first 5 times. But then it gets very very old. No one wants to dig through your fallacious nonsense because you will not listen to reason anyway. Even if it was proven to you that you were completely wrong on every issue, you would not listen. That is what faith is about. The very definition of faith. Look if your faith is so strong, why do you need proof and lies? Just believe. Just don't bother anyone else and believe whatever you like. Just do not shove it on anyone else. I would like to see this sort of thing made illegal. So you could meet a nice guy named Bubba. -- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
200 million year old lobsters look like 2 year old lobsters
http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=225&data=C&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramatur
There is no mention that gas does not clump in a vacuum, proving the big bang could not have happened, using the very laws of physics that you hold so close.
Nice personal attack.
Follow me.
Gas doesn't clump in a vacuum; therefore Stars were not created in the vacuum of space as a result of the big bang.
There is no mention that no one has ever observed a blue shift.
There is no mention that it's mathematically improbable for evolution to have occurred. No mention that human DNA is so incredibly complex it could not just have come in to being through pure chance.
There is no mention that not enough time has passed for cells to randomly have created the diverse life on earth.
YOu say it was random. You say that the universe and all its contents have come about by just pure happenstance.
I do not. What do you know of what I believe, let alone science? Nothing.-- Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - only 1 phylum before, yet 13! afterward.
Evolution is a religion.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.145.177.110 ( talk • contribs).
I would be glad to answer this for you but it has all been answered repeatedly. None of these are new. They were soundly dismissed decades ago. Sorry.-- Filll 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is your point here? I cannot see your point, but maybe that is because you are wearing a hat. -- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Abiogenesis is not the Theory of evolution. Learn your terms before you make a fool of yourself further.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No one says people evolved from monkeys. Learn your science.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know the state of evolutionary simulations, but we have the data to look at, not simulations. Data always trump simulations.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Prove it.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You have amply proved you have complete ignorance of science. Sorry.-- Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect this is just standard quote mining. Let me ask: How sure are you of those quotes you have copied and pasted from some creationist web site? Would you stake your liberty on them? Your life? Would you testify about their accuracy under oath? How about if you were threatened with jail? In a cell with a very friendly cell mate who would make you his "woman"? You ready to go it? You know more than 99.9% of all scientists with scientific backgrounds in biology, at the professional level, believe in evolution? More than 99.84% of almost 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed? That is essentially 100% if you account for noise and survey errors etc. How sure are you that those people in reliable peer-reviewed publications were able to publish material that is contravened by all the data we have? Would you stake your life on it? -- Filll 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Lest we forget! David D. (Talk) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
You present a few mutation out of trillions of creatures over billions of years and say evolution is fact? You ignore the hundreds of thousands of fossils that prove you wrong?
Even Darwin himself had problems with his theory.
No one, anywhere, on earth can say that evolution is factually 100% accurate. None of you have performed double blind tests, found transitional fossils for every creature, or have proven that evolution is a fact; yet you are cliaming that it is. D
Just as I cannot provide any tangible proof that God exists, you cannot provide any proof that evolution is law.
The fact is this: there are many gaping holes in this theory, and you are attempting to quash them.
Belief in Evolution is a religion. You have no more proof that it's real than I do, but your close mindedness prevents you from seeing other sides.
Quit breaking the laws of this site and allow us to post ALL of the facts about this theory.