In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>> the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>> in fact.
>
> Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.

It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
environments critters of the same species over time will become
different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
facts and others.

 

In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>> the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>> in fact.
>
> Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.

It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
environments critters of the same species over time will become
different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
facts and others.

 

In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>> the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>> in fact.
>
> Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.

It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
environments critters of the same species over time will become
different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
facts and others.

 

Lon Stowell wrote:
> Approximately 10/24/03 18:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:
>
>>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>>creation? :-)
>
>
> With a creature capable of posing this argument as a result, I'd
> have to question the actual intelligence of this designer.
>

And with a brain that is the result of random evolution, random thoughts
are only likely to result. :-)

Matt

 

Lon Stowell wrote:
> Approximately 10/24/03 18:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:
>
>>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>>creation? :-)
>
>
> With a creature capable of posing this argument as a result, I'd
> have to question the actual intelligence of this designer.
>

And with a brain that is the result of random evolution, random thoughts
are only likely to result. :-)

Matt

 

Lon Stowell wrote:
> Approximately 10/24/03 18:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:
>
>>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>>creation? :-)
>
>
> With a creature capable of posing this argument as a result, I'd
> have to question the actual intelligence of this designer.
>

And with a brain that is the result of random evolution, random thoughts
are only likely to result. :-)

Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>in fact.
>>
>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>
>
> It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
> It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
> environments critters of the same species over time will become
> different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
> These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
> facts and others.

Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
taller, heavier, etc.

And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
should allow this to happen, right?


Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>in fact.
>>
>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>
>
> It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
> It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
> environments critters of the same species over time will become
> different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
> These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
> facts and others.

Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
taller, heavier, etc.

And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
should allow this to happen, right?


Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>in fact.
>>
>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>
>
> It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
> It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
> environments critters of the same species over time will become
> different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
> These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
> facts and others.

Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
taller, heavier, etc.

And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
should allow this to happen, right?


Matt

 

In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>in fact.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>
>>
>> It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>> It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>> environments critters of the same species over time will become
>> different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>> These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>> facts and others.
>
> Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
> evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
> don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
> taller, heavier, etc.

Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.

> And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
> And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
> species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
> should allow this to happen, right?

If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
pieces of how to get from A to B put together.