Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My theory - that is, evolution, which isn't of course "my" theory in any sense that I came up with it - not only explains all the data, but it makes predictions which have been tested and found accurate. It provides a way to make sense of populations and predict how they'll respond to changes in their environment.
Does your theory do those things?
There is no way that any devout Christian is going to be persuaded otherwise
I was a devout Christian when I came to accept evolution; I came to that position because of the strength of the evidence for it.
but there is also no way that a strong believer in evolution is going to change his beliefs either.
Also not true. Come up with a better theory, one that explains all the data evolution does better than evolution does; one that makes better predictions than evolution does, and you'll see scientists abandon evolution in droves. You'll also get a Nobel prize.
Not everything that happens leaves evidence. We're talking about organisms that may have no hard parts whatsoever. What, exactly, do you think would be left to fossilize?
How come it's okay for an evolutionist scientist to say this, but it's not okay for a Christian to say something very similar about God, and still be taken seriously?
Because we know organisms exist, and we know that some of them are sexed, and we can directly observe the difference between them.
We don't know that God exists. We don't know anything about God for sure. There's absolutely nothing about God that we can directly observe.
Nothing you can say about God can be disproved, ever. Therefore statements about God don't tell us anything. They're just make-believe.
I believe that they are terrified of the thought of actually having to answer to a higher power, but that's just my oppinion.
Why would I be afraid of such a thing? Don't you think that there are higher "powers" that I answer to, every single day? As an atheist, trust me, there's nothing more that I would like than for there to be a God, a higher power to which people would be accountable, a power that would intervene to make things right for people.
But to every indication, there isn't. I'd love there to be a God. But there's no indication there is.
So, next time you want to attempt to slander "religious people", think again; because some of the most powerful people in the world are "religious"
sigh... more threats from the Christers.
Well, that's the life of the atheist.
And why is it that we can't say that evolution has numerous flaws without bringing another theory that has to be better?
I dunno. Why don't you talk to any expert in any field and start telling him all about the flaws in how he does things, without offering any solutions or better plans, and see how friendly he is?
You may call them "flaws"; the word that would be more precise is "frontiers." Why would you expect evolution to be flawless? What would biologists do if that were the case? Or did you not notice that biologists were still very hard at work indeed, trying to derive a better understanding of the natural world?
One "flaw" in medicine is that we don't have a cure for cancer. The solution to that isn't that we tear down all the hospitals; the solution is that we build more schools. Similarly, the areas where evolution seems weak, or where explanitory models seem lacking shouldn't prompt us to abandon reason and science altogether; rather, these are the areas where the work needs to be done.
I am simply trying to say that the evolutionary theory is not perfect, but neither is my own theory.
Of course evolution isn't perfect; that's why biologists still have jobs. But it is better than your theory. I've already pointed out what evolution does that your own theory does not.
Ah, but I see how it works on your planet. Because we don't know everything, we know nothing; and because we know nothing who's to care if we substitute dogma for reason?
How very mature. How does anything get done where you live?
I was simply trying to make a point that I do know that God exists because I have experienced Him, and that I know you at least have an inkling that He exists, because you could feel Him when you read that post.
It must absolutely drive you nuts that people, like myself, exist who absolutely experience none of the feeling you're talking about.
I believe you wrote something else like this before... I know someone did. Did you come up with this yourself?
As far as I know. Feel free to bandy it about with no attribution.
I think this matches nicely with the error ID makes in rushing to judgement:
Indeed. And of course they rush to judgement - this isn't just science for them, it's a battle for the souls of mankind. Apparantly they don't feel they have the luxury of allowing knowledge to develop at its own pace.
In order to make a protein whichis biologically active, the amino acid sequence must be exact.
Hrm, I can't help but think I've rebutted this claim of yours before. Nonetheless:
quote:Functional sequences are not so rare and isolated. Experiments show that roughly 1 in 1011 of all random-sequence proteins have ATP-binding activity (Keefe and Szostak 2001), and theoretical work by H. P. Yockey (1992, 326-330) shows that at this density all functional sequences are connected by single amino acid changes. Furthermore, there are several kinds of mutations that change multiple amino acids at once.