Most Americans now accept evolution.

[jaareshiah]

The article is a dead give away it is an old Creationist Intelligent Design farse article. I require you to cite current peer reviewed scientific articles, and NOT a layman's article that describes only false random evaluations as to how evolution takes place. Evolution is not a random process, only the timing of individual events is random.

George Johnson is oloy a journalist and does not have a PhD in related science to evolution, nor any science degree at all. BAD SOURCE.

You talked but you told me nothing, not even one piece of proof that can be confirmed by empirical evidence. Anyone can say this, but proving with sound evidence is another story. I provided some in-depth "specs" and in which the writer of the article was not the one stating the odds of just one protein of 100 amino acids and precisely twisting into the shape to work properly in a cell as an enzyme, but top notch scientist from around the world.

They are the ones who calculated the odds using the best computers at that time, in which the article states that "last fall (in 1996), scientists around the world, armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life", so take issue with them and prove them wrong. When a person picks up a fork or spoon or knife to use in eating, do they take the position that they just evolved over time, though these are very simplistic in design ?(Note: design requires a designer or mind)

But upping the ante, as the things we use gets more complex, from the modern computers we all use to the car we drive, how many assume that they came along by accident ? None. Let say for the sake of argument that all the parts of a new car created themselves, but place these some 30,000 individual parts on a floor, and how long would it take to concisely put themselves together as a working car without a skilled mind ?

Now the parts are already there, so calculate how long this would require and let me know. But for those who are reasonable, who are realistic, they realize that not one part will ever create itself (much less assemble itself into a precise working unit) so that all the parts of a car harmonizes with the other parts without a skilled mind of an engineer, for without everything precisely fitting together, the car fails to function. No mind, no car. No mind, no fork, spoon or knife.

Hence, without a skilled mind, nothing will ever be created and you know this for a fact, but you reject the sound evidence that a Supreme Designer created all the universe with its abundance of life on the earth that harmonizes to the perfect degree, accepting an unprovable theory or speculation of evolution.

For example, how is it that there is a marvel, flawless arrangement of the carbon cycle, whereby we take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide, while the plants take in carbon dioxide and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere for us and animals to breath all over again, while plants keeps the carbon for themselves ? Without this absolutely necessary cycle, life would have ceased long ago. Instead, life lives on and thrives. Just an accident ?

I am not the one who lacks the ability to grasp that it takes a mind for anything to come into existence, especially the universe with its life. As my mother use to say "Use your noodle" or brain, along with logic and reason.

 

[shunyadragon]

You talked but you told me nothing, not even one piece of proof that can be confirmed by empirical evidence. Anyone can say this, but proving with sound evidence is another story. I provided some in-depth "specs" and in which the writer of the article was not the one stating the odds of just one protein of 100 amino acids and precisely twisting into the shape to work properly in a cell as an enzyme, but top notch scientist from around the world.

They are the ones who calculated the odds using the best computers at that time, in which the article states that "last fall (in 1996), scientists around the world, armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life", so take issue with them and prove them wrong. When a person picks up a fork or spoon or knife to use in eating, do they take the position that they just evolved over time, though these are very simplistic in design ?(Note: design requires a designer or mind)

But upping the ante, as the things we use gets more complex, from the modern computers we all use to the car we drive, how many assume that they came along by accident ? None. Let say for the sake of argument that all the parts of a new car created themselves, but place these some 30,000 individual parts on a floor, and how long would it take to concisely put themselves together as a working car without a skilled mind ?

Now the parts are already there, so calculate how long this would require and let me know. But for those who are reasonable, who are realistic, they realize that not one part will ever create itself (much less assemble itself into a precise working unit) so that all the parts of a car harmonizes with the other parts without a skilled mind of an engineer, for without everything precisely fitting together, the car fails to function. No mind, no car. No mind, no fork, spoon or knife.

Hence, without a skilled mind, nothing will ever be created and you know this for a fact, but you reject the sound evidence that a Supreme Designer created all the universe with its abundance of life on the earth that harmonizes to the perfect degree, accepting an unprovable theory or speculation of evolution.

For example, how is it that there is a marvel, flawless arrangement of the carbon cycle, whereby we take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide, while the plants take in carbon dioxide and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere for us and animals to breath all over again, while plants keeps the carbon for themselves ? Without this absolutely necessary cycle, life would have ceased long ago. Instead, life lives on and thrives. Just an accident ?

I am not the one who lacks the ability to grasp that it takes a mind for anything to come into existence, especially the universe with its life. As my mother use to say "Use your noodle" or brain, along with logic and reason.

Again, again and again . . .

The article is a dead give away it is an old Creationist Intelligent Design farse article. I require you to cite current peer reviewed scientific articles, and NOT a layman's article that describes only false random evaluations as to how evolution takes place. Evolution is not a random process, only the timing of individual events is random.

Again . . .

George Johnson is oloy a journalist and does not have a PhD in related science to evolution, nor any science degree at all. BAD SOURCE.

Please cite peer reviewed scientific references and not a layman's article from an author without a science degree.

Your lack of basic scientific knowledge is appalling.

 

[ecco]

Hence, without a skilled mind, nothing will ever be created and you know this for a fact, but you reject the sound evidence that a Supreme Designer created all the universe with its abundance of life

Yet, somehow, miraculously, a fully formed, fully functioning, omniscient, omnipotent, entity popped into existence.

I am not the one who lacks the ability to grasp that it takes a mind for anything to come into existence, especially the universe with its life. As my mother use to say "Use your noodle" or brain, along with logic and reason.

Too bad you ignore her advice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I quoted from Microsoft's Encarta Dictionary, and yet you say that "the word "theory" in the sciences is quite different from the definition that you think that it has." The Oxford Dictionary says of "theory": a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "Darwin's theory of evolution".

Under the article "Theory and Fact" by the National Center for Science Education, it says: "In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light."(Feb 26, 2016)

Thus, "In science, theories never become facts", but if a theory is true, then it is a fact, so that even the National Center for Science Education fails to provide a reasonable definition of "theory". So does "theories explain facts" ? How could a theory even be considered when it is just speculation, a hypothesis, a presumption, guesswork, like an opinion which is like noses, everybody's got one, having no more weight than the next person ?

You might want to learn how dictionaries work:

You might want to learn how science works as well.
It sounds like you don't really understand either.

 

[Firelight]

https://www.ksby.com/news/national/evolution-now-accepted-by-majority-of-americans-study-finds

A promising shift, albeit still an embarrassing percentage. Of course, most conservatives still appear to be screeching, flailing, and tossing their feces at science.
Your thoughts?

Who cares?

 

[ecco]

Who cares?

Probably those who are still screeching, flailing, and tossing their feces at science care.