danielsangeo

And how do you know that? What claims have I been making that I haven't provided evidence for?

What evidence did you ask for? I must have missed it.

I wasn't saying "Do you, Leif, believe that 2+2=4?". I was saying "Do you, everyone, believe that 2+2=4?" The royal "you". The group "you". I should really substitute "one" for that kind of "you", huh?

What evidence is that? I keep getting told that I don't accept their evidence but whenever I ask for evidence, I never get it.

Leif: Agreed. Also, I find the very notion of "believing in evolution" to be......well, weird. I don't know why the word "believe" has to be used. I always go back to math because it's the easiest to understand. Do you "believe" that 2+2=4? Math aside, do you "believe" that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow? Do you "believe" that your cat is alive? Do you "believe" that a baseball is round? Do you "believe" that adhesives are sticky? Why doesn't anyone use the term 'believe' for these things but "believe in evolution" is?

Philosophically, I'm on the side of being glad that bin Laden is gone. I've had a couple people tell me that I'm a hypocrite for saying this; that I was against those that were purportedly glad that 9/11 happened. I don't buy this argument for one large reason: Osama bin Laden is not the same as people living in New York and DC just going about their daily lives. Scientifically, OBL and the people in NYC and DC are the same species, sure, but, OBL's actions make him different from the NYC/DC residents. As for the innocent deaths that America is responsible for (yes, there is the blood of many innocents on the hands of America), I believe that's a different subject entirely. Also, I'm not sure if we're actually "celebrated OBL's death" so much as celebrating a return to justice. OBL didn't go down without a fight; he didn't turn his back and put his hands behind his head and a bullet was put into his brain. OBL hid behind a human shield and engaged in a firefight (according to reports I've read).

Three words: Nylon Eating Bacteria

Koocka: It's a fair point and one I missed. Aristotle lived in the 300s BC. We're currently in the AD 2000s...only about 2300 years between us. Humans have been around for over 50,000 years if not 100,000 years. If you're looking at a clock from noon to midnight, where noon is the beginning of Homo sapiens and we're talking at midnight, Aristotle was at around 11:35-11:40PM (if my math is correct).

The way I see it, I see some people looking at a television set and wondering how the pictures get onto the screen and suggesting that light can't travel fast enough to replace the image on a screen at a quick enough speed as to simulate moving pictures; that the human eye would be able to see the "stuttering" between the pictures, even at 100FPS, and then claiming that there's an invisible man sitting in every TV painting the pictures for you and then demanding the "invisible man theory" to be taught in science class. Or, tl;dr: Argument from ignorance (aka "No way!") is no replacement for debunking evidence. (Oh, and Bear Grylls is a human.)

So, Bear Grylls is smarter than me?

I'm sorry to say this, but I think there are people today that are smarter than Aristotle. And it really depends on what you mean by "smarter". Aristotle would have a tough time with computers unless you taught him such. And could he understand deep space quasars? And let's not get started on modeling in Hammer.

I do know, actually. "Added information" is something creationists came up with to try to debunk evolution but they haven't been able to define it. When you try to nail them down on what they mean by "added information", they can't answer.

I've already researched this subject deeply and have heard many of the arguments and supposed "debunking" from people that have proven, time and again, to not know what they're talking about. How's that song go? "It's all been done before." Now, instead of going after me, provide evidence that evolutionary theory is wrong. This "must have 40 babies" thing is completely wrong.

I'm a fast reader.

[citation needed]

"These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing." Why? "since there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome" Since these folks never give an example of what "added information" even looks like...............

The teacher had nothing to do with it, that is the only curriculum allowed in public schools here in the USA. I'm sorry, but my science teacher taught me things that had evidence for them....and he DEMANDED we quiz him and make sure that he's right. He required us to use critical thinking skills and experimentation to test hypotheses. In fact, he'd purposefully test us by giving us wrong answers and tried to get us to correct him. If he said that a specific liquid was an acid, we weren't supposed to just accept it as red that it was an acid; we had to test. Sometimes, it was an acid. Sometimes, it was a base. We were graded on whether we knew which was which. I remember, vividly, the teacher said Beaker A had an acid in it. I put my litmus paper into the liquid and it came up a base. I told the teacher that Beaker A was a base and he said "Correct" (telling the teacher that he was wrong) and gave me a positive mark on that test. He taught us to NOT simply accept what people say. That's what science is all about. Also, regarding your quip about it being the "only curriculum allowed", can we teach the controversy and state, in math class, that Pi=3 or that, perhaps, Pi=189,514?

Koocka: True, but atheists like it a lot....and there's not much in atheism to talk about. Atheism is just "don't believe in God". If it was just "atheism", then we don't need to go further than those four words.

Not quite. Unless you think that mathematics is also a "belief". Not quite. Science uses evidence and tries to falsify itself. Religion.........doesn't.

There are some times in the evolution of life that so-called "punctuated equilibrium" happens (generally over several thousand years). If there's a mutation that is very beneficial and this mutation leads to speciation and this new species wipes out the ancestor species, it could seem, from fossil records, that a species "suddenly" ends and a new species "begins"...but living in this "suddenly", it appears that there is a battle for dominance, but it's not like a single animal suddenly transmogrifies, werewolf-style, into a new animal (dog turning into a cat). That just doesn't happen. There are no "turtles with wings" or "giraffes with gills". That just doesn't happen and does not exist in the theory of evolution.

So where are it's parents and offspring? I want to compare... Are you suggesting that the creature that became that fossil didn't have parents or offspring? That's abiogenesis and that's not quite accurate. And we have evidence of this speciation based on environment. Take a look at the London Underground Mosquito. As for evidence of evolution itself, ask yourself one question: Are you identical in every way to your parents? If you have children, are they identical to you and your parents (and your grandparents)? If the answer is anything other than "yes", then you have your evidence for evolution.

Every single living thing on this planet is currently a transitional species. Look in a mirror. Look at what you're seeing. It's the reflection of a transitional species. This is a transitional fossil: Yes, but they won't mutate into 4 grapes... And a cat won't mutate into a dog. Do you know what evolution is?

One: Civil Protection: The Tunnel was being worked on. Two: Upheavals in Ross Scott's life including a recent move into a new place.

I think scientists cling stubbornly to science just as mathematicians cling to the notion of 2+2 equaling 4. It's not faith; it's not belief; it's fact. If you put two apples on a table, then you put two more apples on a table, there will be four apples on the table. There will never be five apples on the table or three apples, or any other number of apples. It's always four. Phlogiston theory was a hypothesis. There was no evidence for it and when it was tested, it was found to not be factual. They found that some materials got lighter after burning but then found that there were some materials that got HEAVIER after burning. There was no evidence for this "phlogisticated" material. I think it's like Galileo and the surface of the Moon. The idea was that the surface of the Moon was completely smooth. Galileo asserted that the discoloration of the Moon was due to mountains and valleys like the Earth had and provided evidence with his telescopes. The idea was then changed to having a clear shell over the mountains and valleys and the surface of the Moon was still completely smooth. Galileo smiled and then asserted that the clear shell could also have mountains and valleys that we just could not see. The "smooth Moon" hypothesis (which had no evidence) was dismissed.

Atheists can even have belief in an afterlife or perhaps reincarnation....atheism is just the lack of belief in deities. If atheism is a "belief" or "religion", then not collecting stamps is a hobby.