Why does evolution select against atheists?

hay_you said:
'Evolution' is an idea made by scientists. I don't deny scientific facts.
Click to expand...
How many times have you claimed "evolution is not a fact"?
You don't deny scientific facts if YOU believe in them, otherwise you deny or ignore.

I use science facts all the time.
Click to expand...
Only the ones you agree with. Hardly rational.

I don't always agree with the interpolation of these facts.
Click to expand...
And your "use" of the English language is as good as your "use" of science. The word is interpretation.

Id o understand scientific theory
Click to expand...
Not on the evidence so far.

Now if the scientific method was used with this discussion there would not be a problem at all.
Click to expand...
I agree.
But you avoid it like the plague.

Scientists, have deviated with the scientific method in this question.
Click to expand...
Nope, you're the deviant.
 
Just because you happen to talk about something does not mean you understand it at all.
Click to expand...
I am no different than anyone else. There a lot of things I don't know.
But this subject I have had a special interest in.
 
How many times have you claimed "evolution is not a fact"?
You don't deny scientific facts if YOU believe in them, otherwise you deny or ignore.
Click to expand...
The science is OK, the scientists interpretation of that science is the problem.
 
hay_you said:
The science is OK, the scientists interpretation of that science is the problem.
Click to expand...

Science do not grow on trees or come out of nowhere. Scientists have been constructing what we know throughout centuries. You can not isolate human element from science; that would only mystifies it unnecessarily, science would become something other than accumulated methodical human knowledge.
 
hay_you said:
The science is OK, the scientists interpretation of that science is the problem.
Click to expand...

This statement alone serves as sufficient evidence to support the idea that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what you're talking about.

Go read a book.
 
Science do not grow on trees or come out of nowhere. Scientists have been constructing what we know throughout centuries. You can not isolate human element from science; that would only mystifies it unnecessarily, science would become something other than accumulated methodical human knowledge.
Click to expand...
Scientists do the work, they find the fossils, they do experiments. They also interpret what he fossils mean. The fossils are the science, the interpretation is the scientists.
 
This statement alone serves as sufficient evidence to support the idea that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what you're talking about.

Go read a book.
Click to expand...
The book you asked me to go and read is the interpretation from the scientists.
This tells me that the scientists do not understand this.
 
hay_you said:
Better be careful, maybe that's what humans are 'evolving' into next.:cool:
Actually those pictures could represent what scientists are saying what happens in 'evolution' with reptiles turning into birds.
Click to expand...

Reptiles did turn into birds. The problem is the human labeling system, which calls them separate things. In reality, birds are just another kind of reptile. Reptiles are just another kind of Amphibian. Amphibians are just another kind of fish, etc...
 
Paleontologists refer to the sauropsida group of tetrapod vertebrates as the ancestors of birds, also lizards, snakes, turtles and crocodiles.

The Synapsida group of tetrapod vertebrates are refered to as the ancestors of mammals.

Hay you, are you going to deny the fossil record too? Just as you did scientific facts, theory and method.

Creationist faith lacks the knowledge and skill to determine facts.
 
Last edited:
hay_you said:
This is exactly the point, lizards are still lizards. Humans are still humans. There is variety,in size and diet etc. But no 'evolution'.
Click to expand...

No, you fail to understand. The lizards have undergone massive morphological evolution in order to adapt to a new diet. They are not the same type anymore, and it is not merely a question of diet. It is open to speculation whether they could or would breed.
 
Reptiles did turn into birds. The problem is the human labeling system, which calls them separate things. In reality, birds are just another kind of reptile. Reptiles are just another kind of Amphibian. Amphibians are just another kind of fish, etc...
Click to expand...
Talk about magic!
 
Paleontologists refer to the sauropsida group of tetrapod vertebrates as the ancestors of birds, also lizards, snakes, turtles and crocodiles.

The Synapsida group of tetrapod vertebrates are refered to as the ancestors of mammals.

Hay you, are you going to deny the fossil record too? Just as you did scientific facts, theory and method.

Creationist faith lacks the knowledge and skill to determine facts.
Click to expand...
They are referred to that by scientist not the science. This is interpretation, of fossils. Scientists have never seen or found where , one kind of animals turns into another kind. This is only speculation.
 
hay_you said:
They are referred to that by scientist not the science. This is interpretation, of fossils. Scientists have never seen or found where , one kind of animals turns into another kind. This is only speculation.
Click to expand...


I observe by your reply you’re saying you deny the evidence made available through the research and examination of the fossils discovered by scientists specializing in the field of paleontology. What exactly do you think science is, anyway and where does science come from?
 
hey_you is credulous almost to the point of beyond my comprehension. Who is it bewitching him?
 
I observe by your reply you’re saying you deny the evidence made available through the research and examination of the fossils discovered by scientists specializing in the field of paleontology. What exactly do you think science is, anyway and where does science come from?
Click to expand...
The science is already there, what scientists do is examine the evidence and make an interpretation from what they find. This is true about the scientists they do the research and with out that most of what man knows about science would not be known. There is a great debt to the scientists for that. Also many of the findings take a lot of training and exchange of knowledge,over many years.
I take nothing away from the scientists for that.
It is just they have made a mistake in the backing something that is not proved, and really can not be proved. Now almost everything that science does is about evolving.
I don't want to plague you guys too much on this, I only wanted you to think about it.
 
That's reality. If the fossil record were complete, there could be no separate naming system for each living thing. You would see no distinct "kinds".
Click to expand...
But that ofcourse is the point. The evidence points to what is real, there are distinct 'kinds'. Scientists are going beyond what the evidence says, to say something completely different than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top