Questions for the Atheists

[KlaytoN]

---

@treize: Seriously, you need to learn gisting! My god!

copy pasta galore.. i hope he can at least explain one by one.. Most of the sources are books from a quarter of a century ago..


@treize: I see that one of your quotes is from Michael Denton. He's a respected biochemist and i admire his scientific research and his anthropic argument for design.. Mao ni nakanindot sa mga genuine scientists they are heard within the scientific community through peer reviews and debates but it does not automatically mean their views are accepted by the majority..

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact. The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

And by the way, going back to Dr Denton, the good news is:

Since the time Denton challenged neo-Darwinism with his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, many of Denton's views have since diverged outside of the Intelligent Design movement, Denton still accepts design but embraces a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory. He denies that randomness accounts for the biology of organisms, he has proposed an evolutionary theory which is a “directed evolution” in his book Natures Destiny (199. Life according to Denton did not exist until initial conditions of the universe were fine tuned.

Well at least he doesn't believe in the 6-day creation anymore..

[kajrot1]

Oh, we have a potential evolutionist here. Eager to learn. Well sir, let me help you with some of my research. Since you wanna go deep.

Human and Ape Chromosomes

Kindly read it, its gonna be a little bit boring but very informative.

does this makes ape and human the same?
are the two identical in terms of DNA??
it only states "SIMILARITY" not IDENTICAL to HUMAN!!
basa tarong bro

[kajrot1]

Who told you that Darwin's theory had no flaws?? My golly brad ok ra ka diha?.. Hay naku..

Simple ra kaayo akong tubag bai and common sense will dictate you that if Darwin's theoretic model was a failure, then there should be no Evolution Theory existing today.. And this theory today is already a scientific fact due to its overwhelming and insurmountable evidence ..

Ang naka nindot man gud sa Science bai, it is self-correcting and is evolving..

No one can tell you how apes evolved into man because that never happend. We share a common ancestor that we both evolved from..

Explain to me how did Darwin's Theory Became a success?
in his theory he even looks for the missing link..

[kajrot1]

as if pod naa ka'y ikapakita nga "proof"....

wa pani mag-daug?

An Absence of Evidence is not an Evidence of an absence.

[iheartnikon]

Reptile to bird, never happened. Never did a snake came out from its egg with feathers on her body.

What?

Another stupidity of understanding evolution...

[kajrot1]

THEIST = universal rule.

ATHEIST = individual rule.

Mas maayo ang ATHEIST. why? because its you that makes your own choices. If you play with the universal rule, then you wont have a choice, right?

Quote Atheism="Individual rule" ?
you mean you won't follow Rules anymore cause you have ur own choices?
now that's dangerous. result, chaos. ^_^

[Devian]

Theory can never be a fact since theories are concepts/ideas that explains fact. Evolution is both a fact and theory. As a fact, there are evidence that it occurs. As to "how", this where theories comes in.

Evolution is supported by evidences from a lot of scientific fields and not from biological point of view alone. If there are issues like what you mentioned "DNA" it is subject to further research but it does not necessarily contradict nor disproves the theory.

Otherwise, Evolution is now discredited and becomes a myth.

[KlaytoN]

Kahibaw man diay kang daghang flaw nganong ipamugos man nimo nga fact na siya, nga nahitabo gyud na? If it's already a fact then why is it still called a theory isn't it contradicting itself?

Okay brad, for me Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection. When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence and is accepted by more than 99% of all scientists in the world.

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."
Source: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2006.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, artificial selection in genetic engineering and other areas that affect our daily lives.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists like you would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the gravitational theory, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges to this day. Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless. Creation Science is a pseudoscience.

[pinoy_09]

nya asa may mas maayu, ginikan muhatag ug guideline/rule sa ilang nagtubo nga mga anak, OR pasagdan ang bata maghuna huna sa unsa iya buhaton gikan sa magmatngun siya ug buot hangtod mudako?

If ginikanan naka bro, asa man imu ginasunod?

Kung bata pa ta ug wa pa ta'y buot, alangan asa man diay ta mu kuha ug guidelines/rules? Of course sa ginikanan. Kana kung bata paka. Pero kung dako na ka and you can think for yourself, mag depende pa diay ka sa uban para sulti-an ka how you should think?

[kajrot1]

Evolution is a fact.

and also a Theory ^_^