Intelligent design

Intelligent design

There are 306 comments on the The Indian Express story from Jun 6, 2012, titled Intelligent design. In it, The Indian Express reports that:

As Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi retires, senior BJP leader L.K. Advani has asked the government to reconsider the appointment process to critical constitutional offices.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indian Express.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#290 May 23, 2013
CORRECTION
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no sabretooth tigers if nature is constant?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no dodo birds?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no mammoths?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no T-rexes?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you seriously believe that these things NEVER existed on the planet?


This does not violate the constant principle found in nature.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
OR, do you believe that they did exist but have gone extinct.
Nature governs by the constant principle that ALL biological entities have a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
If you accept that they have gone extinct, then you MUST accept that nature is NOT constant. Change occurs.
Sorry, nature does not change to an opposite but instead nature varies and that variation never changes to an opposite.

You obviously do not know what the constant principle is and neither do you know how to apply it in nature!

The constant principles states to your above quote that biological entities naturally have a beginning and end in this physical universe and since itís constant it applies to ALL biological entities, now to say that this is not constant would be to imply that some biological entities have a beginning and end and some biological entities do not have a beginning and end.

If this is the case nature would not be constant! Once again, the constant principle states that ALL biological entities have a beginning and end in this physical universe and what you mentioned above follows the constant principle!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#291 May 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no sabretooth tigers if nature is constant?
Why are there no dodo birds?
Why are there no mammoths?
Why are there no T-rexes?
Do you seriously believe that these things NEVER existed on the planet?
OR, do you believe that they did exist but have gone extinct.
If you accept that they have gone extinct, then you MUST accept that nature is NOT constant. Change occurs.
Actually I'm not sure if extinction is a factor here. Since UFOs drop new species off every one million years they could be taking the previous species away rather than them going extinct. He's a bit fuzzy on the details though.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#292 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
The word ďtreeĒ is just as empirical as a physical tree. The laws of nature governs the information you put on topix just like it governs the tree outside. They both fall under the constant principle found in nature and both are subject to a scientific method because they are both empirical evidences.
No they aren't. Tall plants are real. "Tree" is an abstract label. We can swap "tree" with "car", and as long as we can get everyone to agree with the usage the labels will still work, it's just that they now both sound different because we arbitrarily changed the label.

You uh, proved this when you arbitrarily changed the label "opposite" to suit your assumptions.
Infinite Force wrote:
If your information is not constant about explaining a phenomena in nature then the law of non-contradiction will reject it. You canít just go by a person interpretation along on explaining nature with information because humans are prone to fallacy, biased, prejudice etc
And this is precisely why your information is rejected.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#293 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The Biological Reproductive Species term!
<quoted text>
Just because one cannot interpret the DNA code and determine what biological reproductive species it is by observing it with the eyes does not justify nature contradict itself! Nature donít contradict itself and you using DNA to try and justify that nature contradict itself is crazy and pointless!
<quoted text>
Your point?! NAURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITS SELF and any information you use to try and say nature does is pointless and a waste of time!
You are presuming we claim DNA contradicts nature. It does not and we don't claim that.

You are constructing a straw-man of our position and knocking it down. This does not affect our actual position.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#294 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Sorry, nature does not change to an opposite but instead nature varies and that variation never changes to an opposite.
I see you've reverted to incorrect terminology again. It is what's causing you to violate the law of non-contradiction. Infinite Force who has apparently achieved universal conscience or whatever says that's a no-no.

Here is a colour spectrum. Note how the colours change. That is kind of like how evolution works.

http://cronodon.com/images/spectrum.jpg
Infinite Force wrote:
You obviously do not know what the constant principle is and neither do you know how to apply it in nature!
The constant principles states to your above quote that biological entities naturally have a beginning and end in this physical universe and since itís constant it applies to ALL biological entities, now to say that this is not constant would be to imply that some biological entities have a beginning and end and some biological entities do not have a beginning and end.
If you cannot state what this principle is then we reject your claim that our position implies organisms have no beginning or end. Life starts at LUCA. It ends with extinction. All individuals are finite. But each are slightly different from each other.
Infinite Force wrote:
If this is the case nature would not be constant!
Let's be clear - Nature is NOT constant. Never has been, never will be. This is because time is an unavoidable integral factor.

HOWEVER. If you're referring to biology, physics and chemistry, as far as can be determined they work the same way universally. And evolution does not violate any of those three primary subjects.

Perhaps once you start using genuine scientific terminology discussion can actually progress. At the moment you're going round in circles.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#295 May 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is relevant because nature is not constant. A simple look at the geological record will confirm this. DNA supports this even further. You are in violation of the law of non-contradiction.
You and scientist interpretations is flawed by how you are interpreting DNA and geological records and should not be trusted by anyone because you and your scientific findings is concluding that nature contradict its self by claiming itís not constant! To say nature is not constant is to say that nature is contradictory.

What a load of garbage and junk information you and your followers are spewing by saying nature contradict its self so the theory of evolution model can masquerade as science.

The law of non-contradiction stands in nature and itís constant! The distance you people will go to try and prove your pseudo-science is insanity.

You are no different than the rest of the religious people who say their books are not contradicting how the laws of nature works because the information pertaining to the theory of evolution is contradictory information when it comes to explaining nature.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#296 May 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No they aren't. Tall plants are real. "Tree" is an abstract label. We can swap "tree" with "car", and as long as we can get everyone to agree with the usage the labels will still work, it's just that they now both sound different because we arbitrarily changed the label.
Thatís your problem right there, you canít swap opposite meaning words like you do with the theory of evolution to explain natural phenomena because nature does not swap to opposite ways of working because it is constant.

So keep swapping your information to opposite meanings and Iíll keep applying the law of non-contradiction to it and deeming it as junk information when you use it to explain how nature works with your theory of evolution.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is precisely why your information is rejected.(shrug)
I do not swap the same information to opposite meanings over billions of years because your theory demands it like you fruit cakes do in here.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#297 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
All words are information and information is empirical evidence that is observable and testable to a scientific method and that scientific method is not the one current scientist or scientific researcher use. This is why I am introducing a scientific method to information.
"Unicorn". That's a word. It refers to thing with specific characteristics. I can say "unicorn" and convey to someone else a host of characteristics which are _NOT_ present in the 7 letters of the word.

Yet, there is NO such thing.

Words are an ABSTRACTION.
The word ďtreeĒ is just as empirical as a physical tree. The laws of nature governs the information you put on topix just like it governs the tree outside.
False.

Here, I'll prove it:

Do trees have leaves? Yes or no.

The word "tree" does NOT convey enough information for you to correctly answer that question. I could be talking about an elm tree or a pine tree or a phone tree or a petrified tree.

Words are an ABSTRACTION.
Since the laws of nature is constant and when you use information to explain the laws of nature it must be constant also, if not you have contradictory statements about something/nature that is constant and this is where the scientific method called the law of non-contradiction depicts such information presented by scientist who interpret and attempt to explain how nature works.
It is a law of nature that CHANGE HAPPENS. There is NO contradiction in saying that change happens.
This is why I am introducing the law of non-contradiction as a scientific method to test the information that is used to explain nature because information is empirical, observable, testable and is governed by the laws of nature just like the material evidence scientist observe and test in nature.
The problem is that you are NOT accurately describing the things which you are claiming are in contradiction.

EVERYTHING can be described as contradictory if you fail to describe it correctly or completely.

Do trees have leaves?
Yes, elm trees have leaves.
No, pine trees have needles.

Contradiction. Therefore, by your law, trees don't exist.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#298 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Nature governs by the constant principle that ALL biological entities have a beginning and ending!
Okay, what is the "beginning" a nylonese, a bacteria which eats ONLY the synthetic material nylon.

Did this organism exist for billions of years PRIOR to nylon?
Or did it begin only AFTER humans created nylon?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#299 May 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
You and scientist interpretations is flawed by how you are interpreting DNA and geological records and should not be trusted by anyone because you and your scientific findings is concluding that nature contradict its self by claiming itís not constant!
Claiming nature is not constant contradicts nature. Plus evolution passes actual scientific testing. Done by literally thousands of trained scientists all over the world from hundreds and hundreds of science institutions. Your assumptions are wrong, period. When your assumptions contradict scientific testing done on nature your assumptions must be discarded.
Infinite Force wrote:
To claim nature is contant is a contradiction of nature To say nature is not constant is to say that nature is contradictory.
No it's not.
Infinite Force wrote:
What a load of garbage and junk information you and your followers are spewing by saying nature contradict its self so the theory of evolution model can masquerade as science.
Ad-hom attacks against evolution are not a refutation. You need to develop a rational argument. Either that or come over to the dark side and accept reality instead of rejecting it.
Infinite Force wrote:
The law of non-contradiction stands in nature and itís constant!
And I have gone along with that axiom from the moment you mentioned it. So far it is only you who has contradicted your own rule.
Infinite Force wrote:
The distance you people will go to try and prove your pseudo-science is insanity.
This is not a refutation. And it is not insanity when scientific testing continuously demonstrates it to be correct.
Infinite Force wrote:
You are no different than the rest of the religious people who say their books are not contradicting how the laws of nature works because the information pertaining to the theory of evolution is contradictory information when it comes to explaining nature.
You are projecting. Evolution is not contrary to nature. It is simply the history of this planet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#300 May 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Thatís your problem right there, you canít swap opposite meaning words like you do with the theory of evolution to explain natural phenomena because nature does not swap to opposite ways of working because it is constant.
You are still using "opposite" incorrectly. And you are forgetting that nature remains unaffected. "Tree" is merely a sound we made up and arbitrarily assigned to tall plants. If we swap the label "tree" with "car", both the vehicle and the plant remain unchanged and will work the same as before. All that will happen is that if you say "car" everyone will immediately think of a tall plant. The plant doesn't care and will do what it does no matter what weird sounds us humans make.
Infinite Force wrote:
So keep swapping your information to opposite meanings and Iíll keep applying the law of non-contradiction to it and deeming it as junk information when you use it to explain how nature works with your theory of evolution.
I'm not swapping any meanings at all. Only pointing out that human labels are arbitrary, and sometimes are inadequate to accurately describe certain phenomena with a single word because nature doesn't care about our invented pigeon holes. Hence why the astronomers modified the word "planet" recently. Ironically it is you who keeps swapping meanings to avoid the fact that evolution is a reality while you misuse the terms "opposite", "scientific method" and "non-contradiction" so you can contradict reality and pretend reality isn't real.
Infinite Force wrote:
I do not swap the same information to opposite meanings over billions of years because your theory demands it like you fruit cakes do in here.
As pointed out above, you do. We don't. Your assumptions are faulty as is your use of language.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#301 May 24, 2013
Page. 1
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
"Unicorn". That's a word. It refers to thing with specific characteristics. I can say "unicorn" and convey to someone else a host of characteristics which are _NOT_ present in the 7 letters of the word.
Yet, there is NO such thing.
Words are an ABSTRACTION.
Call it ABSTRACTION all you want, it still does not dismiss information as being observable and testable! Hence, the law of non-contradiction is the barrier for synonyms and antonyms terms used to describe nature! You are defining a biological reproductive species as a synonym when applied to LUCA (last universal common ancestor) and now you are re-defining the same term and definition to an opposite/antonym just because billions of years past?! HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!

This is where the law of non-contradiction states a synonym and antonym can not be used for the same term and definition to explain how nature works!

Hence, antonyms and synonyms are opposites and to explain nature with a term in definition with a synonym and then re-explain nature with that same term and definition as an antonym is a contradictory statement or implying that nature contradict its self and this is not so, itís people who contradict themselves like you and the dude by promoting the theory of evolution.

This is why this scientific method called the law of non-contradiction is being used to observe and test the soundness of information when used to explain how nature works proposed by researchers and scientist!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, I'll prove it:
Do trees have leaves? Yes or no.
The word "tree" does NOT convey enough information for you to correctly answer that question. I could be talking about an elm tree or a pine tree or a phone tree or a petrified tree.
So, the term is still observable and testable it just needs a definition! Just because it does not convey enough information does not conclude information is not observable and testable!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Words are an ABSTRACTION.
Words ARE information and it is OBSERVABLE AND TESTABLE by one or more of the five senses and INFORMATION is IMMATERIAL/NON-PHYSICAL! WELCOME TO THE IMMARTERIAL AND NON-PHYSICAL WORLD!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a law of nature that CHANGE HAPPENS. There is NO contradiction in saying that change happens.
I had to pull up the word ďchangeĒ and all of its synonyms and the term opposite is not listed so itís okay to use the word change and I will use the word ďvariationĒ because both of the words are synonyms. Now let me explain something to you about the way YOU AND THE DUDE IS USING THE WORD CHANGE!

You are trying to say that change permits nature to transition to the opposite by saying a biological reproductive species is compatible and over billions of years this biological reproductive species is incompatible. Hence, a synonym/compatible and antonym/incompatible being uses interchangeably on the same scientific term and this is also known as an equivocation problem!

NOTE: When you use the word change you are saying change is compatible and incompatible or you are saying that change is a synonym with opposite AND THIS IS WRONG and it demonstrates you, the dude and your theory of evolution is projecting contradictory information about reality because nature does not contradict itself. Contradict and change or opposite terms.

Once again, change can be used as variation within nature but nature never changes to the opposite. Hence, nature never defines something as a synonym and then the same something as an antonym! NATURE DOESNíT WORK THIS WAY!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#302 May 24, 2013
Page. 2 (Last Page)
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that you are NOT accurately describing the things which you are claiming are in contradiction.
I re-explained and simpler terms for you. Read the previous quote response!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
EVERYTHING can be described as contradictory if you fail to describe it correctly or completely.
WRONG! Only using a synonym term and definition and then re-defining that same synonym term and definition as an antonym is contradictory information or saying that a definition and term can change to an opposite meaning is contradictory.

This is what youíre doing when it comes to LUCA to the present day by proposing descent with modification over billions of years.

Once again, the laws of nature govern information that you post on topix constantly just like the laws of nature govern physical evidence found in nature constantly!

HENCE, NATURE GOVERNS ALL CONSTANTLY!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Do trees have leaves?
Yes, elm trees have leaves.
No, pine trees have needles.
Contradiction. Therefore, by your law, trees don't exist.
WRONG, IT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION!

The definition to what needles and leaves do scientifically is synonymous because leaves and needles primary purpose is to collect photo-synthesis from the sun!

Leaves and needles process the sunlight it captures through a process called photosynthesis and the purpose of a leaf and needle is synonymous THUS not making the terms CONTRADICTORY as you propose!

Hence, there is variation in appearance and terminology but they serve the SAME primary function!

FYOI: PINE NEEDLES ARE ALSO CALLED THIN LEAVES AND LEAVES AS WELL!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#303 May 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming nature is not constant contradicts nature. Plus evolution passes actual scientific testing. Done by literally thousands of trained scientists all over the world from hundreds and hundreds of science institutions. Your assumptions are wrong, period. When your assumptions contradict scientific testing done on nature your assumptions must be discarded.
<quoted text>
No it's not.
<quoted text>
Ad-hom attacks against evolution are not a refutation. You need to develop a rational argument. Either that or come over to the dark side and accept reality instead of rejecting it.
<quoted text>
And I have gone along with that axiom from the moment you mentioned it. So far it is only you who has contradicted your own rule.
<quoted text>
This is not a refutation. And it is not insanity when scientific testing continuously demonstrates it to be correct.
<quoted text>
You are projecting. Evolution is not contrary to nature. It is simply the history of this planet.
If you're going to respond to my quotes don't alter my quotes to the opposite of what I said and then use my explanation as your own to how nature works!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#304 May 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Call it ABSTRACTION all you want, it still does not dismiss information as being observable and testable!
And the info strongly suggests evolution.
Infinite Force wrote:
you are re-defining the same term and definition to an opposite/antonym just because billions of years past?! HELL NO!
No, you are redefining labels with incoherent definitions.
Infinite Force wrote:
the law of non-contradiction
... has been contradicted by yourself numerous times. You have never addressed any of them and instead focussed on where you THINK we have. Then we point out why you're wrong. 20 GOTO 10.
Infinite Force wrote:
implying that nature contradict its self and this is not so
Correct. We have never implied implicitly or otherwise that nature contradicts itself.
Infinite Force wrote:
This is why this scientific method called the law of non-contradiction is being used to observe and test the soundness of information when used to explain how nature works proposed by researchers and scientist!
That's a logic argument. It doesn't become a science until you get off your lazy azz and test a hypothesis.
Infinite Force wrote:
Words ARE information and it is OBSERVABLE AND TESTABLE by one or more of the five senses and INFORMATION is IMMATERIAL/NON-PHYSICAL! WELCOME TO THE IMMARTERIAL AND NON-PHYSICAL WORLD!
Words are not information, they are labels. Labels convey information using coherent definitions. Yours are incoherent.
Infinite Force wrote:
Now let me explain something to you about the way YOU AND THE DUDE IS USING THE WORD CHANGE!
You are trying to say that change permits nature to transition to the opposite
You are still using the word "opposite" incorrectly. After this many times most 5 year olds could get it by now.
Infinite Force wrote:
by saying a biological reproductive species is compatible and over billions of years this biological reproductive species is incompatible. Hence, a synonym/compatible and antonym/incompatible being uses interchangeably on the same scientific term and this is also known as an equivocation problem!
Change the colour on a spectrum just a little eventually it will be a completely different colour and will stand in contrast if placed next to the original colour. No problems here. Evolution is the same.

You've still never addressed those tests I pointed you to. Your logic argument is a way to avoid doing that, but it still doesn't help you when your logic fails.'Tis a shame really, since so far I've found nothing wrong with your original premise of the law of non-contradiction. It's just you wind up using it wrong.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#305 May 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
saying that a definition and term can change to an opposite meaning is contradictory.
Curtis, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but you appear to be using the word "opposite" incorrectly. Your position may improve greatly if this is taken into account.
Infinite Force wrote:
This is what youíre doing when it comes to LUCA to the present day by proposing descent with modification over billions of years.
Once again, the laws of nature govern information that you post on topix constantly just like the laws of nature govern physical evidence found in nature constantly!
HENCE, NATURE GOVERNS ALL CONSTANTLY!
And it is natural for life to change. Unless there is a mechanism to prevent change you will eventually end up with something different. Just like that continually adding 1 to the number 1 will eventually get you to a million. And a billion. And a trillion.
Infinite Force wrote:
WRONG, IT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION!
The definition to what needles and leaves do scientifically is synonymous because leaves and needles primary purpose is to collect photo-synthesis from the sun!
Leaves and needles process the sunlight it captures through a process called photosynthesis and the purpose of a leaf and needle is synonymous THUS not making the terms CONTRADICTORY as you propose!
Hence, there is variation in appearance and terminology but they serve the SAME primary function!
FYOI: PINE NEEDLES ARE ALSO CALLED THIN LEAVES AND LEAVES AS WELL!
Nay, pine needles and leaves are opposites. Pine trees and leaf trees are opposites because they are opposite species. Just like humans and spiders. Or humans and oranges. Or spiders and oranges. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#306 May 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're going to respond to my quotes don't alter my quotes to the opposite of what I said and then use my explanation as your own to how nature works!
I'm not changing your quotes, I'm quoting you exactly, omitting only for space or relevance. I am not changing their meaning. What I AM doing is EXPLAINING that what YOU think those words mean are wrong and then I'm giving you their ACTUAL meaning. It is not my fault that English is not your first language.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#307 May 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not changing your quotes, I'm quoting you exactly, omitting only for space or relevance. I am not changing their meaning. What I AM doing is EXPLAINING that what YOU think those words mean are wrong and then I'm giving you their ACTUAL meaning. It is not my fault that English is not your first language.
Not only are you a contradictory thinking person but also you are a straight out liar! You are the worst as they come!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#308 May 24, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
WRONG, IT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION!
The definition to what needles and leaves do scientifically is synonymous because leaves and needles primary purpose is to collect photo-synthesis from the sun!
False. Needles are used to pull thread through fabric in a process called "sewing". This has nothing to do with photosynthesis.

Leaves, meanwhile, is a verb meaning "to go from". It likewise has nothing to do with photosynthesis, nor is it related to sewing.

The fact that you have the wrong definition of BOTH of these words at the same time means that you are mistaking words to be something other than what they are - ABSTRACTIONS.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#309 May 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Needles are used to pull thread through fabric in a process called "sewing". This has nothing to do with photosynthesis.
Leaves, meanwhile, is a verb meaning "to go from". It likewise has nothing to do with photosynthesis, nor is it related to sewing.
The fact that you have the wrong definition of BOTH of these words at the same time means that you are mistaking words to be something other than what they are - ABSTRACTIONS.
WRONG! The way I defined leaves found on a tree and the needles found on a pine tree as serving the same purpose called photosynthesis is SOUND and a clear explanation of how something and a process work in nature! MY EXPLANATION IS NOT FLAWED!
You use the word ABSTRACTIONS like it discredit information from being observable and testable. Use the word ABSTRACTIONS OR ABASTRACT CONCEPT/IDEA all you want.

The fact is the information used to make up the abstract concept/idea is observable and testable and falls under a scientific method that it must past called the law of non-contradiction when it is used to explain how nature works with information. Nature governs abstract concepts and ideas (information) through the law of non-contradiction and this principle is constant just like nature is when it comes to constant governance.

NOTE: Scientific experiments on the physical evidence is only one piece of the puzzle scientist and researchers must test because the information that they present after their interpretation has a scientific method it must go through to called passing the law of non-contradiction.

Like I said, human interpretation and explanation of physical reality/nature alone is not going to cut it because of their flawed, bias and prejudice ways of thinking. This is why the I am presenting this scientific method called the law of non-contradiction found in nature to test the information flawed, biased and prejudice researchers and scientist present, because the law of non-contradiction is FLAWLESS and human interpretation and explanation on how nature work by pure reasoning after interpretation of physical data alone is FLAWED when it comes to the abstract concept and idea called the theory of evolution!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Science 222,188
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Science 78,578
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 26 min Science 1,371
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 53 min Science 162,987
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Science 791
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Science 32,430
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web