Evolution vs Creation

[knightstemplar]

Because my belief is back with proven evidence. Yours has none.

its a theory

[knightstemplar]

does all of psd believe in evolution?

[natepro]

formula for evolution-
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural
elements + time = all physical laws and a completely
structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets,
and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

how can you believe that

What on earth?


You realize that evolution is not astrophysics, right? It doesn't explain, nor does it even attempt to explain, galaxies, stars, plants, moons, etc.

Did you think by trying to apply evolution where it doesn't even claim to go that you'd somehow poke holes in it?

[Nymfan87]

The story was obviously written by someone who has no idea what the theory of evolution is. It's really pretty pathetic.

Also, OP, did you not learn about evolution at all in your grade school days? Even with basic knowledge of it you'd be able to tell that the original story you posted is a huge crock of ****.

Thankfully, I don't need to go through point by point and shut you down because Nate is here to do the dirty work.

[FlakeyFool]

I was being nice with you, now your going to get **** on.

[natepro]

its a theory

Yeah. A scientific theory. Which has a vastly different definition than the colloquial use of the word "theory."

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

Gravity is a theory, too. Why aren't you questioning it in this manner?

[knightstemplar]

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

-darwin

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_darwin/

[natepro]

Thankfully, I don't need to go through point by point and shut you down because Nate is here to do the dirty work.

I feel like I should get a badge to wear or something.

[dbroncos78087]

formula for evolution-
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural
elements + time = all physical laws and a completely
structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets,
and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

how can you believe that

That is a severely oversimplied and false version of the Big Bang, not evolution.

You are trying to argue evolution and making a claim against the Big Bang, which are two completely separate actions.

Rule #1 of arguments: Know thine enemy

[Cano4prez]

I was being nice with you, now your going to get **** on.

I was waiting for nate to come too

[Bruno87]

Yeah. A scientific theory. Which has a vastly different definition than the colloquial use of the word "theory."

Gravity is a theory, too. Why aren't you questioning it in this manner?

Thanks for mentioning this. Communication break-down.

[natepro]

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

-darwin

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_darwin/

We're resorting to quoting Darwin out of context, I see. People always jump to that when we're talking about slavery or murder in the Bible, but I guess the same standard can't be held to when quoting Darwin. Nevertheless, here's the full quote you, completely innocently I'm sure, neglected to include:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

[natepro]

We can even subtitle it... "Nate argues with the nut jobs"

You know what the ironic thing about this is? Two years ago, it would be titled "Nate's one of the nut jobs."

[knightstemplar]

gravity is a law, newtons law of gravity

[dbroncos78087]

It's a proven theory.

Actually it isnt, a theory is just a set of assumptions that explains observations.

For instance, gravity is only a theory which explains why why we dont float away from the earth and why the earth doesnt float away from the Sun but the moon stays with us and doesnt float to the Sun.